ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Why did not all studies conducted during Darfur's armed conflict obtain ethics approval? Insights from a qualitative study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArmed conflicts are associated with multiple factors that may deem applying the ethical standards of research conducted in war-affected areas hard to achieve, compared to research conducted in peace time.
objectiveUsing the example of studies conducted by the humanitarian agencies in the war-troubled region of Darfur, west Sudan between 2004 and 2012, a qualitative study was pursued to have a deeper understanding of the factors that affected the reporting of gaining the ethical approval in the published reports of these studies.
methodsA qualitative study was used that involved conducting interviews and focus groups with the relevant stakeholders, namely the representatives of the national and international non-governmental organizations, UN agencies, and the national humanitarian and research governance bodies in Sudan.
results38 participants were involved (5 interviewees and 33 participants in the focus groups). The participants expressed a consensus on the need for an ethical oversight for research in the humanitarian settings in Sudan and particularly Darfur. Following a thematic analysis, four main themes were identified to explain why the humanitarian studies in Darfur were not submitted to formal ethical approval. These are (1) Inconsistent definitions of research, (2) Perceptions of low-risk, (3) Perceived urgency due to emergency context, (4) Prior study or tool approval, and (5) Lack of knowledge about ethics review procedures.
conclusionInstitutional gaps in humanitarian governance structures are identified, urging the need for specialized ethics oversight mechanisms. The dynamic nature of humanitarian crises prompts nuanced approaches to ethical scrutiny, emphasizing policy initiatives to harmonize research and humanitarian governance frameworks and learning lessons from research ethics oversight in public health emergencies.
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.