遗传学和基因组学研究的社区参与行为:对乌干达主要利益相关者的经验和观点的定性研究。

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Harriet Nankya, Vincent P Alibu, Enock Matovu, Edward Wamala, John Barugahare
{"title":"遗传学和基因组学研究的社区参与行为:对乌干达主要利益相关者的经验和观点的定性研究。","authors":"Harriet Nankya, Vincent P Alibu, Enock Matovu, Edward Wamala, John Barugahare","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01137-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Community engagement (CE) is one of the key strategies to optimize ethical integrity in research. However, the knowledge base on how CE should be effectively and ethically conducted, particularly for genetics and genomics research (GGR), is limited. Lessons have not been drawn from the experiences of key stakeholders in GGR, on CE, in Uganda.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To analyze the experiences and perspectives of the key stakeholders (GGR researchers, lay communities, and REC members) on engaging communities in GGR, to consequently inform how communities could be ethically engaged in such research, in Uganda.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted at; Makerere University, Uganda Virus Research Institute, and Mulago National Referral Hospital. Twenty-five GGR researchers, twenty REC members, and thirty-eight community members, participated in this study. Data were collected using in-depth interviews guides, and Focus group discussions. Data was analyzed thematically, using NVivo version 12 Plus.</p><p><strong>Study findings: </strong>Thirteen of the twenty-five GGR researchers had conducted CE in their studies, seven REC members had ever reviewed GGR protocols, and all the community respondents had ever participated in GGR. The goal for CE was reported to depend on the type of GGR as either basic or applied. Planning for CE involved; defining the community and for GGR this includes individuals not directly involved in the research but share the study gene with participants; a bigger CE budget to cover extra costs in GGR. The conduct of CE was reported to mainly occur at sample collection stage, rarely at study conception, and had not occurred at the return of results stage. Implementation of CE involved; engaging leaders first to gain access and acceptance of the research in the community; having a genetic counsellor on the CE team to handle the social issues in GGR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides challenges and facilitators on the conduct of CE in GGR in Uganda. Measures including the building of capacity especially knowledge in both GGR and CE for all the stakeholders, and using this study findings to inform policy, regulation, and further research will potentially contribute to ethical CE in GGR in Uganda and similar research contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"25 1","pages":"141"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600932/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community engagement conduct for genetics and genomics research: a qualitative study of the experiences and perspectives of key stakeholders in Uganda.\",\"authors\":\"Harriet Nankya, Vincent P Alibu, Enock Matovu, Edward Wamala, John Barugahare\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-024-01137-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Community engagement (CE) is one of the key strategies to optimize ethical integrity in research. However, the knowledge base on how CE should be effectively and ethically conducted, particularly for genetics and genomics research (GGR), is limited. Lessons have not been drawn from the experiences of key stakeholders in GGR, on CE, in Uganda.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To analyze the experiences and perspectives of the key stakeholders (GGR researchers, lay communities, and REC members) on engaging communities in GGR, to consequently inform how communities could be ethically engaged in such research, in Uganda.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted at; Makerere University, Uganda Virus Research Institute, and Mulago National Referral Hospital. Twenty-five GGR researchers, twenty REC members, and thirty-eight community members, participated in this study. Data were collected using in-depth interviews guides, and Focus group discussions. Data was analyzed thematically, using NVivo version 12 Plus.</p><p><strong>Study findings: </strong>Thirteen of the twenty-five GGR researchers had conducted CE in their studies, seven REC members had ever reviewed GGR protocols, and all the community respondents had ever participated in GGR. The goal for CE was reported to depend on the type of GGR as either basic or applied. Planning for CE involved; defining the community and for GGR this includes individuals not directly involved in the research but share the study gene with participants; a bigger CE budget to cover extra costs in GGR. The conduct of CE was reported to mainly occur at sample collection stage, rarely at study conception, and had not occurred at the return of results stage. Implementation of CE involved; engaging leaders first to gain access and acceptance of the research in the community; having a genetic counsellor on the CE team to handle the social issues in GGR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides challenges and facilitators on the conduct of CE in GGR in Uganda. Measures including the building of capacity especially knowledge in both GGR and CE for all the stakeholders, and using this study findings to inform policy, regulation, and further research will potentially contribute to ethical CE in GGR in Uganda and similar research contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"141\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600932/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01137-6\",\"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/s12910-024-01137-6","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

背景:社区参与 (CE) 是优化研究伦理完整性的关键策略之一。然而,关于如何有效、合乎伦理地开展社区参与,尤其是遗传学和基因组学研究(GGR)的社区参与,相关知识却十分有限。目的:分析主要利益相关者(遗传学和基因组学研究人员、非专业社区和区域经济委员会成员)在让社区参与遗传学和基因组学研究方面的经验和观点,从而为乌干达社区如何以合乎伦理的方式参与此类研究提供信息:在马凯雷雷大学、乌干达病毒研究所和穆拉戈国家转诊医院开展了一项横向定性研究。25 名 GGR 研究人员、20 名 REC 成员和 38 名社区成员参与了这项研究。采用深入访谈指南和焦点小组讨论的方式收集数据。研究结果:在 25 名性别问题研究人员中,有 13 人曾在其研究中开展过 CE,7 名 REC 成员曾审查过性别问题研究协议,所有社区受访者都曾参与过性别问题研究。据报告,全民教育的目标取决于全球基因资源评估的基本类型或应用类型。行政首长协调会的规划涉及:界定社区,对于全球基因资源评估,这包括未直接参与研究但与参与者共享研究基因的个人;更多的行政首长协调会预算,以支付全球基因资源评估的额外费用。据报告,开展 CE 主要发生在样本收集阶段,很少发生在研究构想阶段,也没有发生在返回结果阶段。实施全民教育涉及:首先让领导参与,以获得社区对研究的接触和接受;在全民教育团队中配备一名遗传咨询师,以处理 GGR 中的社会问题:本研究提供了在乌干达开展基因遗传学研究的挑战和促进因素。包括能力建设在内的各项措施,尤其是所有利益相关者在 GGR 和 CE 方面的知识建设,以及利用本研究结果为政策、法规和进一步研究提供信息,将有可能促进乌干达和类似研究环境下 GGR 中符合伦理的 CE。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Community engagement conduct for genetics and genomics research: a qualitative study of the experiences and perspectives of key stakeholders in Uganda.

Background: Community engagement (CE) is one of the key strategies to optimize ethical integrity in research. However, the knowledge base on how CE should be effectively and ethically conducted, particularly for genetics and genomics research (GGR), is limited. Lessons have not been drawn from the experiences of key stakeholders in GGR, on CE, in Uganda.

Aim: To analyze the experiences and perspectives of the key stakeholders (GGR researchers, lay communities, and REC members) on engaging communities in GGR, to consequently inform how communities could be ethically engaged in such research, in Uganda.

Method: A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted at; Makerere University, Uganda Virus Research Institute, and Mulago National Referral Hospital. Twenty-five GGR researchers, twenty REC members, and thirty-eight community members, participated in this study. Data were collected using in-depth interviews guides, and Focus group discussions. Data was analyzed thematically, using NVivo version 12 Plus.

Study findings: Thirteen of the twenty-five GGR researchers had conducted CE in their studies, seven REC members had ever reviewed GGR protocols, and all the community respondents had ever participated in GGR. The goal for CE was reported to depend on the type of GGR as either basic or applied. Planning for CE involved; defining the community and for GGR this includes individuals not directly involved in the research but share the study gene with participants; a bigger CE budget to cover extra costs in GGR. The conduct of CE was reported to mainly occur at sample collection stage, rarely at study conception, and had not occurred at the return of results stage. Implementation of CE involved; engaging leaders first to gain access and acceptance of the research in the community; having a genetic counsellor on the CE team to handle the social issues in GGR.

Conclusion: This study provides challenges and facilitators on the conduct of CE in GGR in Uganda. Measures including the building of capacity especially knowledge in both GGR and CE for all the stakeholders, and using this study findings to inform policy, regulation, and further research will potentially contribute to ethical CE in GGR in Uganda and similar research contexts.

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