Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38745276›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

Who to engage in HIV vaccine trial benefit-sharing negotiations? An empirical proposition of a framework.

Godwin Pancras, Mangi Ezekiel, Erasto Mbugi, Jon F Merz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Godwin PancrasDepartment of Bioethics and Health Professionalism, School of Public Health and Social Sciences, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P.O. Box 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. katunzip@gmail.com.
Mangi EzekielDepartment of Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health and Social Sciences, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P.O. Box 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Erasto MbugiDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Biomedical Sciences, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P.O. Box 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Jon F MerzDepartment of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall Floor 14, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4884, USA.

Funding

Dartmouth/Penn Research Ethics Training and Program Development for TanzaniaR25TW007693 · FIC · DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC · PI ABOUD, MUHSIN MUHAMMED, RINGER, STEVEN ALAN · 2011 to 2020
$2.7M
FIC NIH HHS 5R25TW007693-07FIC NIH HHS R25 TW007693
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA morally sound framework for benefit-sharing is crucial to minimize research exploitation for research conducted in developing countries. However, in practice, it remains uncertain which stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process regarding benefit-sharing and what the implications might be. Therefore the study aimed to empirically propose a framework for benefit-sharing negotiations in research by taking HIV vaccine trials as a case.

methodsThe study was conducted in Tanzania using a case study design and qualitative approaches. Data were collected using in-depth interviews (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGD). A total of 37 study participants were selected purposively comprising institutional review board (IRB) members, researchers, community advisory board (CAB) members, a policymaker, and HIV/AIDS advocates. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis approaches were deployed to analyze collected data with the aid of MAXQDA version 20.4.0 software.

resultsThe findings indicate a triangular relationship between the research community, researched community and intermediaries. However, the relationship ought to take into consideration the timing of negotiations, the level of understanding between parties and the phase of the clinical trial. The proposed framework operationalize partnership interactions in community-based participatory research.

conclusionIn the context of this study, the suggested framework incorporates the research community, the community being researched, and intermediary parties. The framework would guarantee well-informed and inclusive decision-making regarding benefit-sharing in HIV vaccine trials and other health-related research conducted in resource-limited settings.

Indexed as

AIDS VaccinesCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchHIV InfectionsNegotiatingQualitative ResearchAdultClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingDeveloping CountriesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleResearch PersonnelStakeholder ParticipationTanzaniaAIDS VaccinesBenefit-sharingDecision-makingEngagementFrameworkHIV vaccine trialsNegotiationsTanzania

Identifiers

PMID38745276
PMCPMC11092097

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.