Informed consent in a tuberculosis genetic study in Cameroon: information overload, situational vulnerability and diagnostic misconception

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-06-14 DOI:10.1177/17470161221106674
Ali Ibrahim Mohammed-Ali, E. I. Gebremeskel, E. Yenshu, T. Nji, Apungwa Cornelius Ntabe, S. Wanji, G. Tangwa, N. S. Munung
{"title":"Informed consent in a tuberculosis genetic study in Cameroon: information overload, situational vulnerability and diagnostic misconception","authors":"Ali Ibrahim Mohammed-Ali, E. I. Gebremeskel, E. Yenshu, T. Nji, Apungwa Cornelius Ntabe, S. Wanji, G. Tangwa, N. S. Munung","doi":"10.1177/17470161221106674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Concerns around comprehension and recall of consent information by research participants have typically been associated with low health and research literacy levels. In genomics research, this concern is heightened as the scientific and ethical complexities of genetics research, such as biobanking, genetic susceptibility, data sharing, and incidental findings may be more difficult for potential research participants to understand. However, challenges to research participants’ comprehension of consent information may be compounded by factors beyond health and research literacy levels. To identify factors that may impact research participants’ understanding and recall of consent information, we designed a qualitative study to explore whether participants enrolled in a tuberculosis genetics study (TBGEN-Africa) in Cameroon understood the objectives of the study, the risks and benefits and certain key aspects of the study such as biobanking and data sharing. The results showed that research participants had limited understanding and/or recall of the TBGEN-Africa study goals and methods. Some participants were of the opinion that TBGEN-Africa was not a genetics study because tuberculosis is not an inheritable condition. Factors that may have hindered understanding and/or recall of study information are diagnostic misconception (research participants consider research as part of medical diagnosis), and information overload and situational vulnerability (consent at a time of physical and emotional distress). There is a need for improved practices to support research participants’ understanding of consent information in genetics studies including designing the consent process in ways that minimize psychological distress and diagnostic/therapeutic misconception.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221106674","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Concerns around comprehension and recall of consent information by research participants have typically been associated with low health and research literacy levels. In genomics research, this concern is heightened as the scientific and ethical complexities of genetics research, such as biobanking, genetic susceptibility, data sharing, and incidental findings may be more difficult for potential research participants to understand. However, challenges to research participants’ comprehension of consent information may be compounded by factors beyond health and research literacy levels. To identify factors that may impact research participants’ understanding and recall of consent information, we designed a qualitative study to explore whether participants enrolled in a tuberculosis genetics study (TBGEN-Africa) in Cameroon understood the objectives of the study, the risks and benefits and certain key aspects of the study such as biobanking and data sharing. The results showed that research participants had limited understanding and/or recall of the TBGEN-Africa study goals and methods. Some participants were of the opinion that TBGEN-Africa was not a genetics study because tuberculosis is not an inheritable condition. Factors that may have hindered understanding and/or recall of study information are diagnostic misconception (research participants consider research as part of medical diagnosis), and information overload and situational vulnerability (consent at a time of physical and emotional distress). There is a need for improved practices to support research participants’ understanding of consent information in genetics studies including designing the consent process in ways that minimize psychological distress and diagnostic/therapeutic misconception.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
喀麦隆结核病遗传研究中的知情同意:信息超载、情境脆弱性和诊断误解
研究参与者对理解和回忆同意信息的担忧通常与较低的健康和研究素养水平有关。在基因组学研究中,由于遗传学研究的科学和伦理复杂性(如生物银行、遗传易感性、数据共享和偶然发现)可能使潜在的研究参与者更难以理解,这种担忧得到了加强。然而,健康和研究素养水平以外的因素可能使研究参与者对同意信息的理解面临的挑战更加复杂。为了确定可能影响研究参与者对同意信息的理解和回忆的因素,我们设计了一项定性研究,以探讨参加喀麦隆结核病遗传学研究(TBGEN-Africa)的参与者是否了解研究的目标、风险和收益以及研究的某些关键方面,如生物银行和数据共享。结果显示,研究参与者对TBGEN-Africa研究目标和方法的理解和/或回忆有限。一些与会者认为TBGEN-Africa不是一项遗传学研究,因为结核病不是一种可遗传的疾病。可能阻碍理解和/或回忆研究信息的因素是诊断误解(研究参与者将研究视为医学诊断的一部分)、信息过载和情境脆弱性(在身体和情感痛苦时同意)。有必要改进实践,以支持研究参与者对遗传学研究中同意信息的理解,包括以尽量减少心理痛苦和诊断/治疗误解的方式设计同意过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Institutional requirement and central tracking of RCR training of all researchers and research eligible individuals Student interactions with ethical issues in the lab: results from a qualitative study Animal behaviour and welfare research: A One Health perspective No recognised ethical standards, no broad consent: navigating the quandary in computational social science research Research misconduct in China: towards an institutional analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1