ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
How participation in deliberative engagement affects awareness of, and attitudes towards, genomics research and data sharing: evidence from rural Ghana.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeliberative engagement offers an opportunity for communities to provide informed opinions on complex ethical, legal, and social issues in genomic research and biobanking. However, its use is limited, particularly in resource-constrained settings like Ghana. This study examines the influence of deliberative engagement on participants’ awareness of genomic research and attitudes towards data sharing.
methodsThis research forms part of a larger mixed-methods study exploring deliberative methods for community engagement in genomics research in Ghana. Using a quasi-experimental one-group pretest-posttest design, 66 participants completed a baseline survey assessing awareness of genomic research and attitudes toward data sharing. Following this, a deliberative workshop was conducted with facilitated discussions. Post-engagement surveys measured changes in awareness and attitudes, and Fisher’s exact test was used to assess statistical significance.
resultsRespondents (aged 47–67 years; mean 57, SD 4.2) were predominantly male (65%), with 18% having no formal education. Significant improvements were observed in participants’ awareness of genomic research (51–90%, p = 0.001) and confidence in consent processes ensuring privacy and confidentiality. Other variables, including willingness to share samples and trust in data governance, showed no significant change.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that deliberative engagement could enhance awareness of genomic research and offers a promising approach to informing, educating, and fostering dialogue on complex ethical issues in genomic research and biobanking, particularly in resource-limited settings. 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.