ArticleGlobal bioethics enquiry2023
Stakeholder views on future use of biological samples in Malawi and South Africa.
Article in Global bioethics enquiry, 2023. 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.
- Advancing Doctoral and Postdoctoral International Bioethics Training Programs Supported by the D43 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Fogarty Mechanism.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Current advances in biomedical research have introduced new ethical challenges regarding the storage and future use of biological samples in low- and middle-income settings. Few studies have explored key stakeholder views on storage and future use of biological samples in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, an empirical study was conducted to understand key stakeholder views on storage and future use of biological samples in Malawi and South Africa. The main objective was to explore key stakeholder views on current policies on storage and future use of biological samples and use the information obtained to advise on policy implications for future use of biological samples in Malawi and South Africa. Methodology: This was a qualitative study involving in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Seventy-eight participants were recruited in both countries and took part in 34 IDIs and 6 FGDs. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim, and data analyzed thematically, iteratively and inductively using ATLAS. The study was conducted in Cape Town, South Africa, and Blantyre and Lilongwe in Malawi. Results: Most participants recommended future use of biological samples and their indefinite storage. Majority of the participants felt donors of biological samples are the rightful owners of the samples. Few participants recommended that biological samples for a specific study must be destroyed at the end of the study. Conclusion: These findings may inform ongoing ethical debates on storage and future use of biological samples. They may also inform policy changes in Malawi and South Africa on the length of storage of biological samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39464266PMC11511626What 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.