ArticleHeliyon2021
Ethical issues in bio-sample sharing among the public in Jordan.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current situation and future prospect of biobank.CytoJournal · 2026Review
- Strengthening ethical oversight in genomics and biobanking: a retrospective analysis of research practices in Zimbabwe.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Genetic and Genomic Researchers' Perspectives on Biological Sample Sharing in Collaborative Research in Uganda: A Qualitative Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023Article
- Sharing, reuse, and storage of biosamples among biomedical researchers in Jordan: Practice and concerns.PloS one · 2022Article
- Rethinking benefit sharing in collaborative human genetic research from an Afrocommunitarian perspective.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmong the challenges of health research are sharing and the future use of human biological samples. Usually, participants show different opinions and ethical concerns regarding the usage and sharing of their biological samples. In this study, we investigated the perspectives of Jordanian participants regarding bio-samples collection, storage, use, and sharing.
methodsThe study is cross sectional, questionnaire-based, and involved 248 participants from Jordan. Data collected included demographic, qualitative, and quantitative information from research participants. The questionnaire was accomplished in the Arabic language and data were analyzed using SPSS version 22.0.
resultsMost of the participants (77%) supported providing samples for research purposes. Yet, they expressed concerns about the future use of their samples (27.8%), storage of their bio-samples after first use (19%), and export of the bio-samples outside of the country (27%). They further indicated that they will not mind if profits are generated from the samples (36.7%). On the other hand, about 18.5% would be very unhappy and would sue the researchers if their bio-samples were reused without their consent. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: Participants showed strong views on specimen collection, storage, export, benefit sharing and future usage - most significantly on the consent process that permits free choices. Further research should be conducted to explore the concept of bio-samples donation and the benefit of sharing among researchers in Jordan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.