ArticleBMJ global health2022
A framework for the promotion of ethical benefit sharing in health research.
Article in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Context of data sharing practices in collaborative human genomic research in low and middle income countries: A systematic review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Ethical issues in genomics research in persons with Alzheimer's Disease/Alzheimer's Disease-related dementia (AD/ADRD): a systematic review.BMC medical ethics · 2024Pooled it
- Multiple modes of data sharing can facilitate secondary use of sensitive health data for research.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Harnessing data science to control non-communicable diseases in Africa: a systematic review and gap analysis.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Participant engagement and feedback in microbiome projects: a case of AWI-Gen 2.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Collective action for responsible global health data sharing and use.BMJ global health · 2026Review
- Identifying the motivators, benefits and barriers to sharing participant-level data and samples: results from an international online survey of acute febrile illness cohort teams.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Article
- Community and bioethicists' perspectives on iPSC research with biobanked samples collected using broad consent.Stem cell reports · 2025Review
- The Impact of Research Results Feedback on the Lived Experiences of Elderly Participants in the DIMAMO Health Demographic Site: A Case of AWI-Gen Participants.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- How to (or how not to)…Enhance equity in the conduct of global health research: dimensions and directions for organizations.Health policy and planning · 2025Article
- How community members in Uganda perceive controlled human infection studies.Research ethics · 2025Article
- Developing a contextually and culturally relevant benefit-sharing framework for pathogen genomic research and biobanking in africa: a deliberative expert approach.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- A new dawn: Vitalising translational oncology research in Africa with the help of advanced cell culture models.Translational oncology · 2025Article
- Research participants' perception of ethical issues in stroke genomics and neurobiobanking research in Africa.PloS one · 2025Article
- Promoting More Equitable Global Health Research, Education, and Community Partnerships: The Efforts of One US‑Based Academic Institution.Annals of global health · 2025Article
- Health Data Sciences and Cardiovascular Disease in Africa: Needs and the Way Forward.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2024Review
- Defining and pursuing diversity in human genetic studies.Nature genetics · 2024Article
- Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations in genomic research.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is an increasing recognition of the importance of including benefit sharing in research programmes in order to ensure equitable and just distribution of the benefits arising from research. Whilst there are global efforts to promote benefit sharing when using non-human biological resources, benefit sharing plans and implementation do not yet feature prominently in research programmes, funding applications or requirements by ethics review boards. Whilst many research stakeholders may agree with the concept of benefit sharing, it can be difficult to operationalise benefit sharing within research programmes. We present a framework designed to assist with identifying benefit sharing opportunities in research programmes. The framework has two dimensions: the first represents microlevel, mesolevel and macrolevel stakeholders as defined using a socioecological model; and the second identifies nine different types of benefit sharing that might be achieved during a research programme. We provide an example matrix identifying different types of benefit sharing that might be undertaken during genomics research, and present a case study evaluating benefit sharing in Africa during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This framework, with examples, is intended as a practical tool to assist research stakeholders with identifying opportunities for benefit sharing, and inculcating intentional benefit sharing in their research programmes from inception.
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.