Experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetic research among people living with HIV: a qualitative study.

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1177/17470161221076974
Sylvia Nabukenya, Joseph Ochieng, David Kaawa-Mafigiri, Ian Munabi, Janet Nakigudde, Frederick Nelson Nakwagala, John Barugahare, Betty Kwagala, Charles Ibingira, Adelline Twimwijukye, Nelson Sewankambo, Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka
{"title":"Experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetic research among people living with HIV: a qualitative study.","authors":"Sylvia Nabukenya,&nbsp;Joseph Ochieng,&nbsp;David Kaawa-Mafigiri,&nbsp;Ian Munabi,&nbsp;Janet Nakigudde,&nbsp;Frederick Nelson Nakwagala,&nbsp;John Barugahare,&nbsp;Betty Kwagala,&nbsp;Charles Ibingira,&nbsp;Adelline Twimwijukye,&nbsp;Nelson Sewankambo,&nbsp;Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka","doi":"10.1177/17470161221076974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to explore experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetics research and to identify the approaches used for enhancing understanding during the consenting process. Data collection involved 15 qualitative, in-depth interviews with key researchers who were involved in obtaining informed consent from HIV infected individuals in Uganda for participation in pharmacogenetic clinical trials. The study explored two prominent themes: approaches used to convey information and enhance research participants' understanding and challenges faced during the consenting process. Several barriers and facilitators for obtaining consent were identified. Innovative and potentially effective consenting strategies were identified in this study that should be studied and independently verified.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0e/45/nihms-1839228.PMC9536131.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221076974","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: 4

Abstract

This study aimed to explore experiences and practices of key research team members in obtaining informed consent for pharmacogenetics research and to identify the approaches used for enhancing understanding during the consenting process. Data collection involved 15 qualitative, in-depth interviews with key researchers who were involved in obtaining informed consent from HIV infected individuals in Uganda for participation in pharmacogenetic clinical trials. The study explored two prominent themes: approaches used to convey information and enhance research participants' understanding and challenges faced during the consenting process. Several barriers and facilitators for obtaining consent were identified. Innovative and potentially effective consenting strategies were identified in this study that should be studied and independently verified.

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
主要研究小组成员在艾滋病毒感染者药物遗传学研究中获得知情同意的经验和做法:一项定性研究。
本研究旨在探讨主要研究团队成员在药物遗传学研究中获得知情同意的经验和做法,并确定在知情同意过程中加强理解的方法。数据收集涉及对主要研究人员进行15次定性深入访谈,这些研究人员参与了获得乌干达艾滋病毒感染者知情同意参加药物遗传临床试验的工作。该研究探讨了两个突出的主题:用于传达信息和增强研究参与者理解的方法以及在同意过程中面临的挑战。确定了获得同意的若干障碍和促进因素。本研究确定了创新和潜在有效的同意策略,应该进行研究和独立验证。
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