Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35441036›Full record

ArticleGlobal health, epidemiology and genomics2022

Considerations of Autonomy in Guiding Decisions around the Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results from Genomics Research: Expectations of and Preferences from Researchers in Botswana.

Mary Kasule, Mogomotsi Matshaba, Erisa Mwaka, Ambroise Wonkam, Jantina de Vries

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health, epidemiology and genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Mary KasuleBotswana-Baylor Children's Clinical Centre of Excellence, Gaborone, Botswana.ORCID 0000-0002-9054-1518
Mogomotsi MatshabaBotswana-Baylor Children's Clinical Centre of Excellence, Gaborone, Botswana.ORCID 0000-0002-6441-1218
Erisa MwakaCollege of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0003-1672-9608
Ambroise WonkamDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7925, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1420-9051
Jantina de VriesDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7925, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7192-2633

Funding

Phenotyping and BioarchivingU54AI110398 · NIAID · BOTSWANA BAYLOR CHILD/CLINCAL CTR/EXCELL · PI MATSHABA, MOGOMOTSI SANDY · 2014 to 2021
$8.9M
Return of a Fragile X Syndrome genetic result: exploring the feedback of individual genetic findings and their relation to traditional knowledge in a village in Cameroon.U54HG009790 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN · PI WONKAM, AMBROISE · 2017 to 2021
$2.5M
Public Understanding of Big data in Genomics Medicine in Africa (PUBGEM-Africa)U01MH127692 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN · PI MUNUNG, NCHANGWI SYNTIA, WONKAM, AMBROISE · 2021 to 2025
$1.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG009790NIAID NIH HHS U54 AI110398NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH127692
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Human Health and Heredity (H3Africa) Consortium continues to generate large amounts of genomic data leading to new insights into health and disease among African populations. This has however generated debate among stakeholders involved in developing, implementing, and applying ethical standards and policies for the return of individual genetic research results. The key questions are about when results must, should, may, or must not be returned and by whom. This study aimed to explore the views on the feedback of individual pertinent and incidental genetic research results of researchers, ethics committee members, and policymakers in Botswana. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 key stakeholders from academic, research institutions, and regulatory bodies in Botswana. An analysis of the coded data was done through an iterative process of analytic induction to document and interpret themes and patterns. Results: Overall, the study indicated that researchers have at least a partial obligation to return individual genetic research results to research participants. Respondents placed emphasis on the ethical principle of autonomy. They felt that it was inappropriate for researchers to make decisions about the return of results on participants' behalf except in situations of avoiding participant self-harm or harm to society. Conclusion: Findings helped to highlight the importance of considering participants' autonomy in the development of sustainable and credible guidelines for feedback of findings from genomics research in Botswana, which can be explained during community engagement and consent processes. Such guidelines would ultimately be used to develop policies, guide African genomics research, and promote participant autonomy, transparency, and possibly participant trust in research.

Indexed as

GenomicsMotivationBotswanaFeedbackGenetic ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID35441036
PMCPMC8989579

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.