ArticlePLOS global public health2022
A blank check or a global public good? A qualitative study of how ethics review committee members in Colombia weigh the risks and benefits of broad consent for data and sample sharing during a pandemic.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Willingness to participate in a personalized health cohort - insights from the swiss health study pilot phase.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Broad consent for future use facilitates the reuse of participant-level data and samples, which can conserve limited resources by confirming research findings and facilitate the development and evaluation of public health and clinical advances. Ethics review committees (ERCs) have to balance different stakeholder concerns when evaluating the risks and benefits associated with broad consent for future use. In this qualitative study, we evaluated ERC members' concerns about different aspects of broad consent, including appropriate governance, community engagement, evaluation of risks and benefits, and communication of broad consent for future use in Colombia, which does not currently have national guidance related to broad consent for future use. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 24 ERC members from nine Colombian ERCs. We used thematic analysis to explore ERC members' concerns related to broad consent for future use. Most ERC members expressed concern about the idea of not specifying the purposes for which data would be used and by whom and suggested that pre-specifying governance procedures and structure would address some of their concerns about broad consent. ERC members emphasized the need for engaging communities and ensuring research participants understood broad consent for future use-related language in informed consent forms. Researchers and research institutions are under increasing pressure to share public health-related data. ERC members play a central role in balancing the priorities of different stakeholders and maintaining their community's trust in public health research. Further work is needed on guidelines for developing language around broad consent, evaluating community preferences related to data sharing, and developing standards for describing governance for data or sample sharing in the research protocol to address ERC members' concerns around broad consent for future use.
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.