ArticleEthiopian journal of health sciences2023
Rapid Bioethical Assessment for
Article in Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid Ethical Assessment (REA) is a rapid qualitative study anticipated to understand the ethical sphere of the research setting prior to recruiting study subjects. This study assessed the communities' knowledge about tuberculosis (TB) and research, understand the social arrangements advisable for recruiting research participant and appraised the information provision and consent process. Methods: The study was conducted in Amhara region, Ethiopia from 5 Results: Over 71% of researchers were not satisfied with the current consent process, and 82.7% of researchers agreed that the best interest of the research participants was not adequately addressed in the current research practices in ANRS. TB patients and healthy controls misunderstood research and its goals. Participants advised the researchers to approach the community with the assistance of health extension workers (HEW) or religious/local leaders. Combined use of verbal and written based information provision at individual participant level is the preferred way for information provision. Conclusions: The adherence of researchers to standard information provision and consent process was very low. Healthy controls and TB patients have low level of knowledge and awareness about research, ethics and genomic research-related common terms. Hence, public education is required to strengthen the research ethics in the region.
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.