Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32689995›Full record

ReviewBMC medical ethics2020

A qualitative study exploring stakeholder perspectives on the use of biological samples for future unspecified research in Malawi.

Limbanazo Matandika, Ruby Tionenji Ngóngóla, Khama Mita, Lucinda Manda-Taylor, Kate Gooding, Daniel Mwale, Francis Masiye, Joseph Mfutso-Bengo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Limbanazo MatandikaCentre for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Private Bag 360, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi. limbamindiera@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6932-9635
Ruby Tionenji NgóngólaCentre for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Private Bag 360, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
Khama MitaCentre for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Private Bag 360, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
Lucinda Manda-TaylorCentre for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Private Bag 360, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
Kate GoodingOxford Policy Management, Oxford, UK.
Daniel MwaleJohn Hopkins- One Community Project, Blantyre, Malawi.
Francis MasiyeCentre for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Private Bag 360, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
Joseph Mfutso-BengoCentre for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Private Bag 360, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi.
University of Malawi · MWBlantyre Institute for Community Ophthalmology · MWOxford Policy Management · GB

Funding

Malawi HIV Implementation Research Scientist Training Program (MHIRST)D43TW010060 · FIC · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MINA CHRISTINE HOSSEINIPOUR, Victor Mwapasa · 2015 to 2026
$3.8M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW010060University of Malawi, College of Medicine none
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing interest in the collection, storage and reuse of biological samples for future research. Storage and future use of biological samples raise ethical concerns and questions about approaches that safeguard the interests of participants. The situation is further complicated in Africa where there is a general lack of governing ethical frameworks that could guide the research community on appropriate approaches for sample storage and use. Furthermore, there is limited empirical data to guide development of such frameworks. A qualitative study to address this gap was conducted with key stakeholders in Malawi to understand their experiences and perspectives regarding storage and usage of samples for future research.

methodsThis study conducted 13 in-depth interviews with ethics committee members, regulators and researchers, and five focus group discussions with community representatives and clinical trial participants in Malawi. Interviews and focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed.

resultsOn the current regulatory guidelines that governs the collection, storage and reuse of samples in Malawi, participants highlighted their different understanding of it, with some indicating that it prohibited the reuse and sharing of samples, while others believed it permitted. Views on the informed consent model used in Malawi, some stakeholders expressed that the current model limited options for sample contributors regarding future use. Researchers supported storing samples for future use in order to maximize their value and reduce research costs. However, they expressed concern over the exportation of samples highlighting that it could lead to misuse and would not support the development of research capacity within Malawi. They recommended use of broad consent or tiered consent and establishment of biobanks to address these concerns.

conclusionsStudy findings highlighted the need for a review of the current regulatory guideline and the development of infrastructure to support the use of stored biological samples for future use among the research community in Malawi. At the moment, there are ethical and practical concerns arising from the collection, storage and secondary use of biological samples make it hard to reconcile scientific progress and the protection of participants.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEthics Committees, ResearchHumansInformed ConsentMalawiQualitative ResearchBiobankingFuture use, biological samples and trustInformed consent

Identifiers

PMID32689995
PMCPMC7372640
OpenAlexW3043183845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.