ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Developing a contextually and culturally relevant benefit-sharing framework for pathogen genomic research and biobanking in africa: a deliberative expert approach.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, researchers are struggling to implement benefit-sharing plans in genomics research and biobanking. In the African context, there are currently limited benefit-sharing frameworks to guide researchers, and some often rely on personal relationships and judgments in making decisions. Consequently, there have been calls for the development of contextually and culturally relevant benefit-sharing frameworks for pathogenic research and biobanking in Africa. This study responds to that call by using a deliberative experts approach to propose and develop a benefit-sharing framework for pathogen genomic research and biobanking.
methodsData were collected through deliberative expert key informant interviews. A total of 25 participants, comprising genomics researchers, policymakers, Nagoya Protocol Focal persons, members of institutional review boards, Sponsors and Experts in the field of genomics and biobanking were purposively sampled from 12 countries. Open-ended topic guides were designed and used to facilitate the interviews. The interviews explored issues such as the need for a benefit-sharing framework, the principles underpinning the practice of benefit-sharing, and key features of a possible benefit-sharing framework. Interviews were conducted in English, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Transcripts were imported into Nvivo 14 software, coded and analysed using the framework approach for qualitative data analysis.
resultsThe participants reported on the key issues to consider in the development of a benefit-sharing framework. These included motivations for sharing benefits, key elements of a benefit-sharing framework and suggestions for monitoring the implementation of the framework. Based on these expert responses, we proposed and developed a three-phase framework. The first phase presents the contextual benefit-sharing process, which includes the benefit-sharing process, iterative benefit-sharing cycles and post-benefit-sharing responsibilities. The second phase comprises the implementation phase with templates on a step-by-step approach to achieving the three areas in phase 1 and the third concentrates on workplans to accommodate future emerging issues such as designing strategies to map out best practices on benefit-sharing, making efforts to publish the selected strategy and implementing the selected benefit-sharing.
conclusionsThe deliberative approach used in this study allowed for not only contextually and culturally relevant factors to be identified but also enabled reflexive decision-making. The framework developed has the potential to provide practical guidance to pathogen genomic stakeholders in the identification and implementation of benefit-sharing opportunities in their research programmes. More empirical studies are however required to test and evaluate the framework. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.