阿尔茨海默病/阿尔茨海默病相关痴呆症(AD/ADRD)患者基因组研究中的伦理问题:系统综述。

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Aminu Yakubu, Isaac Adedeji, Oluchi C Maduka, Ayodele Jegede, Clement Adebamowo
{"title":"阿尔茨海默病/阿尔茨海默病相关痴呆症(AD/ADRD)患者基因组研究中的伦理问题:系统综述。","authors":"Aminu Yakubu, Isaac Adedeji, Oluchi C Maduka, Ayodele Jegede, Clement Adebamowo","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01141-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Given the growing number of Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) genomics research projects and the vulnerabilities of study participants, it is critical to evaluate the literature on the ethical challenges in such studies to ensure high ethical standards.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of the literature on ethical issues in AD/ADRD genomics research. We searched Embase, PsycINFO, CiNAHL, Scopus, and Ovid Medline for empirical and normative papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the ethical issues involved in conducting genomics research among persons with AD/ADRD. We used ethical principles from an existing framework as a priori codes to categorize the ethical issues and adapted another framework of Dementia Research Ethical Issues (DREI) as subcategories for our synthesis. We used the 2021 PRISMA guidelines to guide our study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 5,509 papers and included 27 of these papers in the systematic review after deduplication, title, and full-text review. The papers contained 109 ethical issues that were mapped against 42 out of 75 relevant DREIs. The highest number of DREIs were mapped to \"respect for persons and communities\", \"favorable risk-benefit ratio\", \"informed consent\" and \"scientific validity\". The least mapped principles to the DREIs were \"fair participant selection\", \"independent review\", \"social value\", and \"collaborative partnership\".</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our review showed that there is a dearth of literature on the ethical principles of \"fair participant selection\", \"independent review\", \"social value\" and \"collaborative partnership\" in genomics research on AD/ADRDs. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the distribution of attention paid to specific principles because these may only reflect the concerns of AD/ADRD genomics research ethicists in high-income countries. There is need for more research on the ethics of AD/ADRD genomics research in low and middle-income countries for a more balanced account of the important ethical considerations in this field.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"25 1","pages":"138"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11587778/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical issues in genomics research in persons with Alzheimer's Disease/Alzheimer's Disease-related dementia (AD/ADRD): a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Aminu Yakubu, Isaac Adedeji, Oluchi C Maduka, Ayodele Jegede, Clement Adebamowo\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-024-01141-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Given the growing number of Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) genomics research projects and the vulnerabilities of study participants, it is critical to evaluate the literature on the ethical challenges in such studies to ensure high ethical standards.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of the literature on ethical issues in AD/ADRD genomics research. We searched Embase, PsycINFO, CiNAHL, Scopus, and Ovid Medline for empirical and normative papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the ethical issues involved in conducting genomics research among persons with AD/ADRD. We used ethical principles from an existing framework as a priori codes to categorize the ethical issues and adapted another framework of Dementia Research Ethical Issues (DREI) as subcategories for our synthesis. We used the 2021 PRISMA guidelines to guide our study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 5,509 papers and included 27 of these papers in the systematic review after deduplication, title, and full-text review. The papers contained 109 ethical issues that were mapped against 42 out of 75 relevant DREIs. The highest number of DREIs were mapped to \\\"respect for persons and communities\\\", \\\"favorable risk-benefit ratio\\\", \\\"informed consent\\\" and \\\"scientific validity\\\". The least mapped principles to the DREIs were \\\"fair participant selection\\\", \\\"independent review\\\", \\\"social value\\\", and \\\"collaborative partnership\\\".</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our review showed that there is a dearth of literature on the ethical principles of \\\"fair participant selection\\\", \\\"independent review\\\", \\\"social value\\\" and \\\"collaborative partnership\\\" in genomics research on AD/ADRDs. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the distribution of attention paid to specific principles because these may only reflect the concerns of AD/ADRD genomics research ethicists in high-income countries. There is need for more research on the ethics of AD/ADRD genomics research in low and middle-income countries for a more balanced account of the important ethical considerations in this field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"138\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11587778/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01141-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01141-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:鉴于阿尔茨海默病和阿尔茨海默病相关痴呆症(AD/ADRD)基因组学研究项目的数量不断增加以及研究参与者的脆弱性,评估有关此类研究中伦理挑战的文献以确保高伦理标准至关重要:我们对有关 AD/ADRD 基因组研究中伦理问题的文献进行了系统回顾。我们检索了 Embase、PsycINFO、CiNAHL、Scopus 和 Ovid Medline 等同行评审期刊上发表的有关在 AD/ADRD 患者中开展基因组学研究的伦理问题的经验性和规范性论文。我们使用现有框架中的伦理原则作为先验代码对伦理问题进行分类,并改编了另一个痴呆研究伦理问题(DREI)框架,作为我们进行综合的子类别。我们使用了 2021 年的 PRISMA 指南来指导我们的研究:我们筛选了 5509 篇论文,并在进行了删除、标题和全文审阅后将其中的 27 篇论文纳入了系统综述。这些论文包含 109 个伦理问题,与 75 个相关 DREIs 中的 42 个相对应。与 "尊重个人和社区"、"有利的风险效益比"、"知情同意 "和 "科学有效性 "相对应的伦理REI 最多。与 DREIs 映射最少的原则是 "公平选择参与者"、"独立审查"、"社会价值 "和 "协作伙伴关系":我们的综述表明,在有关注意力缺陷/注意力缺陷残疾的基因组学研究中,有关 "公平选择参与者"、"独立审查"、"社会价值 "和 "合作伙伴关系 "等伦理原则的文献十分匮乏。很难从具体原则的关注度分布中得出确切的结论,因为这些原则可能只反映了高收入国家 AD/ADRD 基因组学研究伦理学家所关注的问题。有必要对中低收入国家的 AD/ADRD 基因组学研究伦理问题开展更多的研究,以便更加平衡地阐述这一领域的重要伦理考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethical issues in genomics research in persons with Alzheimer's Disease/Alzheimer's Disease-related dementia (AD/ADRD): a systematic review.

Introduction: Given the growing number of Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) genomics research projects and the vulnerabilities of study participants, it is critical to evaluate the literature on the ethical challenges in such studies to ensure high ethical standards.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on ethical issues in AD/ADRD genomics research. We searched Embase, PsycINFO, CiNAHL, Scopus, and Ovid Medline for empirical and normative papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the ethical issues involved in conducting genomics research among persons with AD/ADRD. We used ethical principles from an existing framework as a priori codes to categorize the ethical issues and adapted another framework of Dementia Research Ethical Issues (DREI) as subcategories for our synthesis. We used the 2021 PRISMA guidelines to guide our study.

Results: We screened 5,509 papers and included 27 of these papers in the systematic review after deduplication, title, and full-text review. The papers contained 109 ethical issues that were mapped against 42 out of 75 relevant DREIs. The highest number of DREIs were mapped to "respect for persons and communities", "favorable risk-benefit ratio", "informed consent" and "scientific validity". The least mapped principles to the DREIs were "fair participant selection", "independent review", "social value", and "collaborative partnership".

Conclusion: Our review showed that there is a dearth of literature on the ethical principles of "fair participant selection", "independent review", "social value" and "collaborative partnership" in genomics research on AD/ADRDs. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the distribution of attention paid to specific principles because these may only reflect the concerns of AD/ADRD genomics research ethicists in high-income countries. There is need for more research on the ethics of AD/ADRD genomics research in low and middle-income countries for a more balanced account of the important ethical considerations in this field.

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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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