Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35012535›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical ethics2022

Operationalising a real-time research ethics approach: supporting ethical mindfulness in agriculture-nutrition-health research in Malawi.

Limbanazo Matandika, Kate Millar, Eric Umar, Edward Joy, Joseph Mfutso-Bengo

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Limbanazo MatandikaCenter for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa, University of Malawi, College of Medicine, Private Bag 360, Blantyre, Malawi. limbamindiera@gmail.com.
Kate MillarCentre for Applied Bioethics, Schools of Biosciences and Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK.
Eric UmarHealth Systems and Policy Department, University of Malawi, College of Medicine, Private Bag 360, Blantyre, Malawi.
Edward JoyFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Joseph Mfutso-BengoCenter for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa, University of Malawi, College of Medicine, Private Bag 360, Blantyre, Malawi.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere have been notable investments in large multi-partner research programmes across the agriculture-nutrition-health (ANH) nexus. These studies often involve human participants and commonly require research ethics review. These ANH studies are complex and can raise ethical issues that need pre-field work, ethical oversight and also need an embedded process that can identify, characterise and manage ethical issues as the research work develops, as such more embedded and dynamic ethics processes are needed. This work builds on notions of 'ethics in practice' by developing an approach to facilitate ethical reflection within large research programmes. This study explores the application of a novel 'real-time research ethics approach' (RTREA) and how this can support ethical mindfulness. This involves embedding ethical analysis and decision-making within research implementation, with a continuous dialogue between participants and researchers. The aim is to improve ethical responsiveness and participant experience, which in turn may ethically support adherence and retention. In this case study, a bioethics team (BT) was embedded in a community-based randomised, controlled trial conducted in rural Malawi, titled the 'Addressing Hidden Hunger with Agronomy'. To identify ethical issues, the researchers conducted ten focus group discussions, fourteen in-depth interviews with key informants, two workshops, observed two sensitisation and three activity meetings conducted by the trial team, and analysed fifteen reports from pre-trial to trial implementation.

resultsThe RTREA facilitated the identification of social and ethical concerns and made researchers aware of participants' 'lived research experience'. To address concerns and experiences, the BT worked with researchers to facilitate conversation spaces where social and ethical issues were discussed. Conversation spaces were designed to create partnerships and promote participatory methods to capture trial participants' (TPs) perspectives and experiences.

conclusionsThe use of RTREA showed the value of real-time and continuous engagement between TPs and researchers. These real-time processes could be embedded to complement traditional ethical guidance and expert opinions. A deeper engagement appeared to support greater operationalising of principles of inclusion, empowerment, and participant autonomy and supported researchers 'ethical mindfulness' which in turn may support instrumental outcomes of high recruitment, retention, and adherence levels.

Indexed as

MindfulnessAgricultureEthics, ResearchHumansMalawiResearch PersonnelEthical considerationsEthical mindfulnessEthics in agriculture-nutritionInteractive sessionsParticipant adherenceReal-time research ethics approachResponsivenessStudy obligations

Identifiers

PMID35012535
PMCPMC8748184

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.