在基因组学研究中使用广泛同意和相关程序:来自赞比亚一所大学教学医院风湿性心脏病遗传学(RHDGen)研究参与者的观点。

Q1 Arts and Humanities Global Bioethics Pub Date : 2019-03-24 DOI:10.1080/11287462.2019.1592868
Oliver Mweemba, John Musuku, Bongani M Mayosi, Michael Parker, Rwamahe Rutakumwa, Janet Seeley, Paulina Tindana, Jantina De Vries
{"title":"在基因组学研究中使用广泛同意和相关程序:来自赞比亚一所大学教学医院风湿性心脏病遗传学(RHDGen)研究参与者的观点。","authors":"Oliver Mweemba,&nbsp;John Musuku,&nbsp;Bongani M Mayosi,&nbsp;Michael Parker,&nbsp;Rwamahe Rutakumwa,&nbsp;Janet Seeley,&nbsp;Paulina Tindana,&nbsp;Jantina De Vries","doi":"10.1080/11287462.2019.1592868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of broad consent for genomics research raises important ethical questions for the conduct of genomics research, including relating to its acceptability to research participants and comprehension of difficult scientific concepts. To explore these and other challenges, we conducted a study using qualitative methods with participants enrolled in an H3Africa Rheumatic Heart Disease genomics study (the RHDGen network) in Zambia to explore their views on broad consent, sample and data sharing and secondary use. In-depth interviews were conducted with RHDGen participants (<i>n</i> = 18), study staff (<i>n</i> = 5) and with individuals who refused to participate (<i>n</i> = 3). In general, broad consent was seen to be reasonable if reasons for storing the samples for future research use were disclosed. Some felt that broad consent should be restricted by specifying planned future studies and that secondary research should ideally relate to original disease for which samples were collected. A few participants felt that broad consent would delay the return of research results to participants. This study echoes findings in other similar studies in other parts of the continent that suggested that broad consent could be an acceptable consent model in Africa if careful thought is given to restrictions on re-use.</p>","PeriodicalId":36835,"journal":{"name":"Global Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11287462.2019.1592868","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of broad consent and related procedures in genomics research: Perspectives from research participants in the Genetics of Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHDGen) study in a University Teaching Hospital in Zambia.\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Mweemba,&nbsp;John Musuku,&nbsp;Bongani M Mayosi,&nbsp;Michael Parker,&nbsp;Rwamahe Rutakumwa,&nbsp;Janet Seeley,&nbsp;Paulina Tindana,&nbsp;Jantina De Vries\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11287462.2019.1592868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of broad consent for genomics research raises important ethical questions for the conduct of genomics research, including relating to its acceptability to research participants and comprehension of difficult scientific concepts. To explore these and other challenges, we conducted a study using qualitative methods with participants enrolled in an H3Africa Rheumatic Heart Disease genomics study (the RHDGen network) in Zambia to explore their views on broad consent, sample and data sharing and secondary use. In-depth interviews were conducted with RHDGen participants (<i>n</i> = 18), study staff (<i>n</i> = 5) and with individuals who refused to participate (<i>n</i> = 3). In general, broad consent was seen to be reasonable if reasons for storing the samples for future research use were disclosed. Some felt that broad consent should be restricted by specifying planned future studies and that secondary research should ideally relate to original disease for which samples were collected. A few participants felt that broad consent would delay the return of research results to participants. This study echoes findings in other similar studies in other parts of the continent that suggested that broad consent could be an acceptable consent model in Africa if careful thought is given to restrictions on re-use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Bioethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11287462.2019.1592868\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2019.1592868\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2019.1592868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

在基因组学研究中使用广泛同意提出了基因组学研究行为的重要伦理问题,包括与研究参与者的可接受性和对困难科学概念的理解有关。为了探索这些和其他挑战,我们使用定性方法对在赞比亚参加h3非洲风湿性心脏病基因组学研究(RHDGen网络)的参与者进行了一项研究,以探讨他们对广泛同意、样本和数据共享以及二次使用的看法。对RHDGen参与者(n = 18)、研究人员(n = 5)和拒绝参与的个人(n = 3)进行了深入访谈。一般来说,如果披露了储存样本供未来研究使用的原因,广泛同意被视为是合理的。一些人认为,应该通过具体说明计划的未来研究来限制广泛同意,并且二级研究最好与收集样本的原始疾病有关。一些与会者认为,广泛的同意会推迟向与会者返还研究结果。这项研究与非洲大陆其他地区的其他类似研究的发现相呼应,这些研究表明,如果仔细考虑对再利用的限制,广泛同意可能是非洲可以接受的同意模式。
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
Use of broad consent and related procedures in genomics research: Perspectives from research participants in the Genetics of Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHDGen) study in a University Teaching Hospital in Zambia.

The use of broad consent for genomics research raises important ethical questions for the conduct of genomics research, including relating to its acceptability to research participants and comprehension of difficult scientific concepts. To explore these and other challenges, we conducted a study using qualitative methods with participants enrolled in an H3Africa Rheumatic Heart Disease genomics study (the RHDGen network) in Zambia to explore their views on broad consent, sample and data sharing and secondary use. In-depth interviews were conducted with RHDGen participants (n = 18), study staff (n = 5) and with individuals who refused to participate (n = 3). In general, broad consent was seen to be reasonable if reasons for storing the samples for future research use were disclosed. Some felt that broad consent should be restricted by specifying planned future studies and that secondary research should ideally relate to original disease for which samples were collected. A few participants felt that broad consent would delay the return of research results to participants. This study echoes findings in other similar studies in other parts of the continent that suggested that broad consent could be an acceptable consent model in Africa if careful thought is given to restrictions on re-use.

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
Global Bioethics
Global Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊最新文献
Can biosampling really be "non-invasive"? An examination of the socially invasive nature of physically non-invasive biosampling in urban and rural Malawi. The expressivist argument for recent policy changes regarding the provision of prenatal testing in Japan. A youth advisory group on health and health research in rural Cambodia. May Artificial Intelligence take health and sustainability on a honeymoon? Towards green technologies for multidimensional health and environmental justice. Broad consent for biobank research in South Africa - Towards an enabling ethico-legal framework
×
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