Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33165554›Full record

ArticleInternational health2020

Comparative ethnographies of medical research: materiality, social relations, citizenship and hope in Tanzania and Sierra Leone.

Shelley Lees, Luisa Enria

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Shelley LeesDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK.
Luisa EnriaDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0100137
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper we bring together ethnographic research carried out during two clinical prevention trials to explore identities, relations and political imaginations that were brought to life by these different technologies. We highlight the ways in which critical anthropological engagement in clinical trials can help us radically reconsider the parameters and standards of medical research. In the paper we analyse the very different circumstances that made these two trials possible, highlighting the different temporalities and politics of HIV and Ebola as epidemics. We then describe four themes revealed by ethnographic research with participants and their communities but mediated by the specific sociopolitical contexts in which the trials were taking place. In both countries we found materiality and notions of exchange to be important to participants' understanding of the value of medical research and their role within it. These dynamics were governed through social relations and moral economies that also underpinned challenges to Western notions of research ethics. The clinical trials offered a language to express both disaffection and disillusionment with the political status quo (often through rumours and anxieties) while at the same time setting the foundations for alternative visions of citizenship. Attached to these were expressions of 'uncertainty and hope' steeped in locally distinctive notions of destiny and expectations of the future.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEpidemicsHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaAnthropology, CulturalClinical Trials as TopicHumansSierra LeoneTanzaniaAfricaanthropologyclinical trialscomparativeEbolaHIV

Identifiers

PMID33165554
PMCPMC7650898

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.