Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39605020›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

Community engagement conduct for genetics and genomics research: a qualitative study of the experiences and perspectives of key stakeholders in Uganda.

Harriet Nankya, Vincent P Alibu, Enock Matovu, Edward Wamala, John Barugahare

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. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
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

5 authors.

Harriet NankyaDepartment of Philosophy, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Makerere University, P. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
Vincent P AlibuDepartment of Biochemistry and Sports Science, College of Natural Sciences, Makerere University, P. O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda. palibu@cns.mak.ac.ug.
Enock MatovuDepartment of Biotechnical and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity (COVAB), Makerere University, P. O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
Edward WamalaDepartment of Philosophy, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Makerere University, P. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
John BarugahareDepartment of Philosophy, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Makerere University, P. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity engagement (CE) is one of the key strategies to optimize ethical integrity in research. However, the knowledge base on how CE should be effectively and ethically conducted, particularly for genetics and genomics research (GGR), is limited. Lessons have not been drawn from the experiences of key stakeholders in GGR, on CE, in Uganda.

aimTo analyze the experiences and perspectives of the key stakeholders (GGR researchers, lay communities, and REC members) on engaging communities in GGR, to consequently inform how communities could be ethically engaged in such research, in Uganda.

methodA cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted at; Makerere University, Uganda Virus Research Institute, and Mulago National Referral Hospital. Twenty-five GGR researchers, twenty REC members, and thirty-eight community members, participated in this study. Data were collected using in-depth interviews guides, and Focus group discussions. Data was analyzed thematically, using NVivo version 12 Plus. STUDY

findingsThirteen of the twenty-five GGR researchers had conducted CE in their studies, seven REC members had ever reviewed GGR protocols, and all the community respondents had ever participated in GGR. The goal for CE was reported to depend on the type of GGR as either basic or applied. Planning for CE involved; defining the community and for GGR this includes individuals not directly involved in the research but share the study gene with participants; a bigger CE budget to cover extra costs in GGR. The conduct of CE was reported to mainly occur at sample collection stage, rarely at study conception, and had not occurred at the return of results stage. Implementation of CE involved; engaging leaders first to gain access and acceptance of the research in the community; having a genetic counsellor on the CE team to handle the social issues in GGR.

conclusionThis study provides challenges and facilitators on the conduct of CE in GGR in Uganda. Measures including the building of capacity especially knowledge in both GGR and CE for all the stakeholders, and using this study findings to inform policy, regulation, and further research will potentially contribute to ethical CE in GGR in Uganda and similar research contexts.

Indexed as

GenomicsQualitative ResearchAdultCommunity ParticipationCross-Sectional StudiesEthics, ResearchFemaleFocus GroupsGenetic ResearchHumansMaleMiddle AgedResearch PersonnelStakeholder ParticipationUgandaCommunityCommunity engagementExperiencesGenetics and genomics researchPerspectivesResearchersResearch ethics committeeUganda

Identifiers

PMID39605020
PMCPMC11600932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.