与土著人民共同开展基因组定性研究:参与性实践的范围界定审查。

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Morgan Ehman, Nadine R Caron, Laurie Montour, Dean A Regier
{"title":"与土著人民共同开展基因组定性研究:参与性实践的范围界定审查。","authors":"Morgan Ehman, Nadine R Caron, Laurie Montour, Dean A Regier","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Indigenous peoples and perspectives are under-represented within genomic research. Qualitative methods can help redress this under-representation by informing the development of inclusive genomic resources aligned with Indigenous rights and interests. The difficult history of genomic research with Indigenous peoples requires that research be conducted responsibly and collaboratively. Research guidelines offer structuring principles, yet little guidance exists on how principles translate into practical, community-led methods. We identified the scope and nature of participatory practice described in published qualitative genomic research studies with Indigenous peoples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the Bibliography of Indigenous Peoples in North America. Eligible studies reported qualitative methods investigating genomics-related topics with Indigenous populations in Canada, the USA, Australia or New Zealand. Abstracted participatory practices were defined through a literature review and mapped to a published ethical genomic research framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 17 articles. Published articles described a breadth of methods across a diversity of Indigenous peoples and settings. Reported practices frequently promoted Indigenous-partnered research regulation, community engagement and co-creation of research methods. The extent of participatory and community-led practice appeared to decrease as studies progressed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Applying non-prescriptive Indigenous genomic research guidelines to qualitative inquiry can be achieved through varied methodological approaches. Our findings affirm the adaptive nature of this process in real-world settings and identify opportunities for participatory practice and improved reporting across the research lifecycle. These findings and the breadth of characterised applied research practices are instructive for researchers seeking to develop much-needed qualitative genomic research partnerships.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"9 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487801/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative genomic research with Indigenous peoples: a scoping review of participatory practice.\",\"authors\":\"Morgan Ehman, Nadine R Caron, Laurie Montour, Dean A Regier\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015377\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Indigenous peoples and perspectives are under-represented within genomic research. Qualitative methods can help redress this under-representation by informing the development of inclusive genomic resources aligned with Indigenous rights and interests. The difficult history of genomic research with Indigenous peoples requires that research be conducted responsibly and collaboratively. Research guidelines offer structuring principles, yet little guidance exists on how principles translate into practical, community-led methods. We identified the scope and nature of participatory practice described in published qualitative genomic research studies with Indigenous peoples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the Bibliography of Indigenous Peoples in North America. Eligible studies reported qualitative methods investigating genomics-related topics with Indigenous populations in Canada, the USA, Australia or New Zealand. Abstracted participatory practices were defined through a literature review and mapped to a published ethical genomic research framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 17 articles. Published articles described a breadth of methods across a diversity of Indigenous peoples and settings. Reported practices frequently promoted Indigenous-partnered research regulation, community engagement and co-creation of research methods. The extent of participatory and community-led practice appeared to decrease as studies progressed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Applying non-prescriptive Indigenous genomic research guidelines to qualitative inquiry can be achieved through varied methodological approaches. Our findings affirm the adaptive nature of this process in real-world settings and identify opportunities for participatory practice and improved reporting across the research lifecycle. These findings and the breadth of characterised applied research practices are instructive for researchers seeking to develop much-needed qualitative genomic research partnerships.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"volume\":\"9 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487801/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015377\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015377","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:在基因组研究中,原住民和原住民观点的代表性不足。定性方法有助于纠正这种代表性不足的问题,为开发符合土著人权利和利益的包容性基因组资源提供信息。与土著居民共同开展基因组研究的艰难历史要求我们以负责任和合作的方式开展研究。研究指南提供了结构性原则,但对于如何将这些原则转化为实用的、由社区主导的方法却鲜有指导。我们确定了已发表的原住民基因组定性研究中描述的参与性实践的范围和性质:我们对 PubMed、CINAHL、Embase、Scopus 和《北美原住民书目》进行了检索。符合条件的研究报告采用定性方法调查了加拿大、美国、澳大利亚或新西兰土著居民的基因组学相关主题。我们通过文献综述对所摘录的参与性实践进行了定义,并将其与已出版的基因组研究伦理框架进行了映射:我们确定了 17 篇文章。已发表的文章介绍了多种方法,涉及不同的土著民族和环境。所报道的实践经常促进土著人参与的研究监管、社区参与和研究方法的共同创造。随着研究的深入,参与性和社区主导实践的程度似乎有所下降:在定性调查中应用非规范性的土著基因组研究准则可以通过不同的方法论途径来实现。我们的研究结果肯定了这一过程在现实世界环境中的适应性,并确定了在整个研究生命周期中参与性实践和改进报告的机会。这些发现以及应用研究实践的广泛性对寻求发展急需的定性基因组研究合作关系的研究人员具有指导意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Qualitative genomic research with Indigenous peoples: a scoping review of participatory practice.

Introduction: Indigenous peoples and perspectives are under-represented within genomic research. Qualitative methods can help redress this under-representation by informing the development of inclusive genomic resources aligned with Indigenous rights and interests. The difficult history of genomic research with Indigenous peoples requires that research be conducted responsibly and collaboratively. Research guidelines offer structuring principles, yet little guidance exists on how principles translate into practical, community-led methods. We identified the scope and nature of participatory practice described in published qualitative genomic research studies with Indigenous peoples.

Methods: We performed a search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the Bibliography of Indigenous Peoples in North America. Eligible studies reported qualitative methods investigating genomics-related topics with Indigenous populations in Canada, the USA, Australia or New Zealand. Abstracted participatory practices were defined through a literature review and mapped to a published ethical genomic research framework.

Results: We identified 17 articles. Published articles described a breadth of methods across a diversity of Indigenous peoples and settings. Reported practices frequently promoted Indigenous-partnered research regulation, community engagement and co-creation of research methods. The extent of participatory and community-led practice appeared to decrease as studies progressed.

Conclusion: Applying non-prescriptive Indigenous genomic research guidelines to qualitative inquiry can be achieved through varied methodological approaches. Our findings affirm the adaptive nature of this process in real-world settings and identify opportunities for participatory practice and improved reporting across the research lifecycle. These findings and the breadth of characterised applied research practices are instructive for researchers seeking to develop much-needed qualitative genomic research partnerships.

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
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信