Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38586568›Full record

ArticleAsian bioethics review2024

All you Need is Trust? Public Perspectives on Consenting to Participate in Genomic Research in the Sri Lankan District of Colombo.

Krishani Jayasinghe, W A S Chamika, Kaushalya Jayaweera, Kalpani Abhayasinghe, Lasith Dissanayake, Athula Sumathipala, Jonathan Ives

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian bioethics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The case for an integrated biobanking initiative in South Asia.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026
    Review
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

7 authors.

Krishani JayasingheInstitute for Research and Development in Health & Social Care, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-4841-5040
W A S ChamikaInstitute for Research and Development in Health & Social Care, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0001-9789-4335
Kaushalya JayaweeraInstitute for Research and Development in Health & Social Care, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0003-3780-0901
Kalpani AbhayasingheInstitute for Research and Development in Health & Social Care, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-9180-7023
Lasith DissanayakeInstitute for Research and Development in Health & Social Care, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-3609-4358
Athula SumathipalaInstitute for Research and Development in Health & Social Care, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-8706-2698
Jonathan IvesCentre for Ethics in Medicine, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5233-5000

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engagement with genomic medicine and research has increased globally during the past few decades, including rapid developments in Sri Lanka. Genomic research is carried out in Sri Lanka on a variety of scales and with different aims and perspectives. However, there are concerns about participants' understanding of genomic research, including the validity of informed consent. This article reports a qualitative study aiming to explore the understanding, knowledge, and attitudes of the Sri Lankan public towards genomic medicine and to inform the development of an effective and appropriate process for informed consent in that setting. Purposive sampling was employed. Participants were recruited from a sub-group of the public in Colombo, Sri Lanka who had either consented or refused to donate genetic material for a biobank. Data were collected using face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Conventional content analysis was used. The analysis developed three key themes: a) 'Scientific literacy' describes an apparent lack of scientific knowledge that seems to affect a participant's ability to understand the research, b) 'Motivation' describes narratives about why participants chose (not) to take part in the research, despite not understanding it, and c) 'Trust' describes how trust served to mitigate the apparent ethical deficit created by not being fully informed. In this article, we argue that informed trust is likely an acceptable basis for consent, particularly in settings where scientific literacy might be low. However, researchers must work to be worthy of that trust and ensure that misconceptions are actively addressed.

Indexed as

Genomic MedicineInformed ConsentLMICResearch ethicsTherapeutic MisconceptionTrust

Identifiers

PMID38586568
PMCPMC10994890

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.