Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41884519›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2017

Rapid Ethical Appraisal: A tool to design a contextualized consent process for a genetic study of podoconiosis in Ethiopia.

Tewodros Tariku Gebresilase, Zebene Deresse, Girmay Tsegay, Tesfaye Sisay Tessema, Abraham Aseffa, Gail Davey, Melanie Newport, Fasil Tekola-Ayele, Adamu Addissie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Tewodros Tariku GebresilaseArmauer Hansen Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2608-2465
Zebene DeresseArmauer Hansen Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Girmay TsegayDebre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.
Tesfaye Sisay TessemaUnit of Health Biotechnology, Institute of Biotechnology, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4103-5029
Abraham AseffaArmauer Hansen Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gail DaveyCentre for Equitable Global Health Research, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, BN1 9PX, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2796-7468
Melanie NewportCentre for Equitable Global Health Research, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, BN1 9PX, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8946-7525
Fasil Tekola-Ayele *Centre for Research on Genomics and Global Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Adamu Addissie *Medical Faculty, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Obtaining valid informed consent from research participants in low-income settings can be difficult, partly due to participants' limited familiarity with scientific research concepts. The situation is complicated when conducting genomic research on a stigmatizing familial disease. Methods: We used Rapid Ethical Appraisal as a tool to assess local factors that were barriers to obtaining valid informed consent prior to conducting a genetic study of podoconiosis (non-filarial elephantiasis) in two Zones of Ethiopia. The tool included in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with patients, healthy community members, field workers, researchers/Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, elders, religious leaders, and care coordinators (charity staff who support treatment clinics). Results: Most patients and healthy community members did not differentiate research from routine clinical care (therapeutic misconception). Participants felt comfortable when approached in the presence of trusted community members. Regarding the mode of consent, field workers and care coordinators preferred verbal consent, whereas the majority of patients and healthy community members suggested the use of both verbal and written consent to accommodate varying literacy levels. Participants better understood genetic susceptibility concepts when analogies drawn from their day-to-day experience were used. Field workers and care coordinators considered the type of biological sample sought and gender were the most critical factors affecting the recruitment process. Most researchers and IRB members indicated that reporting incidental findings to participants is not a priority in an Ethiopian context. Conclusions: Understanding the concerns of local people in areas where research is to be conducted facilitates the design of contextualized consent processes appropriate for all parties and will ultimately result in obtaining valid consent.

Indexed as

Developing CountryInformed consentPodoconiosisRapid Ethical Appraisal

Identifiers

PMID41884519
PMCPMC13010092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.