Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33165549›Full record

ArticleInternational health2020

Research ethics in context: understanding the vulnerabilities, agency and resourcefulness of research participants living along the Thai-Myanmar border.

Napat Khirikoekkong, Nattapat Jatupornpimol, Suphak Nosten, Supa-At Asarath, Borimas Hanboonkunupakarn, Rose McGready, Francois Nosten, Jennifer Roest, Michael Parker, Maureen Kelley and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Spotlight on global health research.International health · 2020
    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

11 authors.

Napat KhirikoekkongShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Nattapat JatupornpimolMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Suphak NostenShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Supa-At AsarathMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Borimas HanboonkunupakarnDepartment of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rose McGreadyShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Francois NostenShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Jennifer RoestWellcome Centre for Ethics & Humanities, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Michael ParkerWellcome Centre for Ethics & Humanities, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Maureen KelleyWellcome Centre for Ethics & Humanities, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Phaik Yeong CheahMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_16025Wellcome Trust 096527Wellcome Trust 106698Wellcome Trust 200344/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust 203132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch ethics guidelines set a high bar for conducting research with vulnerable populations, often resulting in their exclusion from beneficial research. Our study aims to better characterise participants' vulnerabilities, agency, resourcefulness and sources of support.

methodsWe undertook qualitative research around two clinical studies involving migrant women living along the Thai-Myanmar border. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews and 10 focus group discussions with research participants, families, researchers and key informants.

resultsWe found that being 'undocumented' is at the core of many structural vulnerabilities, reflecting political, economic, social and health needs. Although migrant women lead challenging lives, they have a support network that includes family, employers, community leaders, non-governmental organisations and research networks. Migrant women choose to participate in research to access quality healthcare, gain knowledge and obtain extra money. However, research has the potential to exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, such as the burdens of cross-border travel, foregoing work and being more visible as migrants.

conclusionsOur study confirms that research is important to provide evidence-based care and was viewed by participants as offering many benefits, but it also has hidden burdens. Migrant women exercised agency and resourcefulness when navigating challenges in their lives and research participation.

Indexed as

Transients and MigrantsEthics, ResearchFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMyanmarQualitative ResearchThailandagencyconsentmigrantspregnant womenresearch ethicsvulnerability

Identifiers

PMID33165549
PMCPMC7651704

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.