你需要的只是信任吗?斯里兰卡科伦坡地区同意参与基因组研究的公众观点

IF 1.3 Q3 ETHICS Asian Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2023-11-29 DOI:10.1007/s41649-023-00269-y
Krishani Jayasinghe, W. A. S. Chamika, Kaushalya Jayaweera, Kalpani Abhayasinghe, Lasith Dissanayake, Athula Sumathipala, Jonathan Ives
{"title":"你需要的只是信任吗?斯里兰卡科伦坡地区同意参与基因组研究的公众观点","authors":"Krishani Jayasinghe,&nbsp;W. A. S. Chamika,&nbsp;Kaushalya Jayaweera,&nbsp;Kalpani Abhayasinghe,&nbsp;Lasith Dissanayake,&nbsp;Athula Sumathipala,&nbsp;Jonathan Ives","doi":"10.1007/s41649-023-00269-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Engagement with genomic medicine and research has increased globally during the past few decades, including rapid developments in Sri Lanka. Genomic research is carried out in Sri Lanka on a variety of scales and with different aims and perspectives. However, there are concerns about participants' understanding of genomic research, including the validity of informed consent. This article reports a qualitative study aiming to explore the understanding, knowledge, and attitudes of the Sri Lankan public towards genomic medicine and to inform the development of an effective and appropriate process for informed consent in that setting. Purposive sampling was employed. Participants were recruited from a sub-group of the public in Colombo, Sri Lanka who had either consented or refused to donate genetic material for a biobank. Data were collected using face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Conventional content analysis was used. The analysis developed three key themes: a) ‘Scientific literacy’ describes an apparent lack of scientific knowledge that seems to affect a participant’s ability to understand the research, b) ‘Motivation’ describes narratives about why participants chose (not) to take part in the research, despite not understanding it, and c) ‘Trust’ describes how trust served to mitigate the apparent ethical deficit created by not being fully informed. In this article, we argue that informed trust is likely an acceptable basis for consent, particularly in settings where scientific literacy might be low. However, researchers must work to be worthy of that trust and ensure that misconceptions are actively addressed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41649-023-00269-y.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"All you Need is Trust? Public Perspectives on Consenting to Participate in Genomic Research in the Sri Lankan District of Colombo\",\"authors\":\"Krishani Jayasinghe,&nbsp;W. A. S. Chamika,&nbsp;Kaushalya Jayaweera,&nbsp;Kalpani Abhayasinghe,&nbsp;Lasith Dissanayake,&nbsp;Athula Sumathipala,&nbsp;Jonathan Ives\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41649-023-00269-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Engagement with genomic medicine and research has increased globally during the past few decades, including rapid developments in Sri Lanka. Genomic research is carried out in Sri Lanka on a variety of scales and with different aims and perspectives. However, there are concerns about participants' understanding of genomic research, including the validity of informed consent. This article reports a qualitative study aiming to explore the understanding, knowledge, and attitudes of the Sri Lankan public towards genomic medicine and to inform the development of an effective and appropriate process for informed consent in that setting. Purposive sampling was employed. Participants were recruited from a sub-group of the public in Colombo, Sri Lanka who had either consented or refused to donate genetic material for a biobank. Data were collected using face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Conventional content analysis was used. The analysis developed three key themes: a) ‘Scientific literacy’ describes an apparent lack of scientific knowledge that seems to affect a participant’s ability to understand the research, b) ‘Motivation’ describes narratives about why participants chose (not) to take part in the research, despite not understanding it, and c) ‘Trust’ describes how trust served to mitigate the apparent ethical deficit created by not being fully informed. In this article, we argue that informed trust is likely an acceptable basis for consent, particularly in settings where scientific literacy might be low. However, researchers must work to be worthy of that trust and ensure that misconceptions are actively addressed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44520,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Bioethics Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41649-023-00269-y.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Bioethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-023-00269-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-023-00269-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的几十年里,全球参与基因组医学和研究的人数不断增加,其中包括斯里兰卡的快速发展。斯里兰卡开展了各种规模的基因组研究,目的和视角各不相同。然而,人们担心参与者对基因组研究的理解,包括知情同意的有效性。本文报告了一项定性研究,旨在探讨斯里兰卡公众对基因组医学的理解、知识和态度,并为在这种情况下制定有效、适当的知情同意程序提供信息。研究采用了有目的的抽样方法。参与者是从斯里兰卡科伦坡的一个公众子群体中招募的,他们要么同意要么拒绝为生物库捐赠基因材料。通过面对面的半结构化访谈收集数据。访谈数据被逐字记录并翻译成英文。采用了传统的内容分析方法。分析形成了三个关键主题:a) "科学素养 "描述了参与者明显缺乏科学知识,这似乎影响了参与者理解研究的能力;b) "动机 "描述了参与者为何在不理解研究的情况下选择(不)参与研究;c) "信任 "描述了信任是如何缓解因未充分知情而造成的明显道德缺失的。在本文中,我们认为知情信任很可能是同意的一个可接受的基础,尤其是在科学素养可能较低的情况下。然而,研究人员必须努力不辜负这种信任,并确保积极消除误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
All you Need is Trust? Public Perspectives on Consenting to Participate in Genomic Research in the Sri Lankan District of Colombo

Engagement with genomic medicine and research has increased globally during the past few decades, including rapid developments in Sri Lanka. Genomic research is carried out in Sri Lanka on a variety of scales and with different aims and perspectives. However, there are concerns about participants' understanding of genomic research, including the validity of informed consent. This article reports a qualitative study aiming to explore the understanding, knowledge, and attitudes of the Sri Lankan public towards genomic medicine and to inform the development of an effective and appropriate process for informed consent in that setting. Purposive sampling was employed. Participants were recruited from a sub-group of the public in Colombo, Sri Lanka who had either consented or refused to donate genetic material for a biobank. Data were collected using face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Conventional content analysis was used. The analysis developed three key themes: a) ‘Scientific literacy’ describes an apparent lack of scientific knowledge that seems to affect a participant’s ability to understand the research, b) ‘Motivation’ describes narratives about why participants chose (not) to take part in the research, despite not understanding it, and c) ‘Trust’ describes how trust served to mitigate the apparent ethical deficit created by not being fully informed. In this article, we argue that informed trust is likely an acceptable basis for consent, particularly in settings where scientific literacy might be low. However, researchers must work to be worthy of that trust and ensure that misconceptions are actively addressed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.
期刊最新文献
Opening Access to the Bioethics Spectrum An Ethical Analysis of the Online Content of Assisted Reproductive Technology Centers in Bangladesh Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Editorial Boards of Medical Student Journals Reflections from Chinese and Japanese Physicians on Medical Disputes The Effectiveness of a Hospital Ethics Committee in a Non-Western Country: Lessons from a Ten-Year Experience
×
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