A qualitative study exploring stakeholder perspectives on the use of biological samples for future unspecified research in Malawi.
Biobanking
Future use, biological samples and trust
Informed consent
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 07 2020
20 07 2020
Historique:
received:
09
08
2019
accepted:
14
07
2020
entrez:
22
7
2020
pubmed:
22
7
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is growing interest in the collection, storage and reuse of biological samples for future research. Storage and future use of biological samples raise ethical concerns and questions about approaches that safeguard the interests of participants. The situation is further complicated in Africa where there is a general lack of governing ethical frameworks that could guide the research community on appropriate approaches for sample storage and use. Furthermore, there is limited empirical data to guide development of such frameworks. A qualitative study to address this gap was conducted with key stakeholders in Malawi to understand their experiences and perspectives regarding storage and usage of samples for future research. This study conducted 13 in-depth interviews with ethics committee members, regulators and researchers, and five focus group discussions with community representatives and clinical trial participants in Malawi. Interviews and focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. On the current regulatory guidelines that governs the collection, storage and reuse of samples in Malawi, participants highlighted their different understanding of it, with some indicating that it prohibited the reuse and sharing of samples, while others believed it permitted. Views on the informed consent model used in Malawi, some stakeholders expressed that the current model limited options for sample contributors regarding future use. Researchers supported storing samples for future use in order to maximize their value and reduce research costs. However, they expressed concern over the exportation of samples highlighting that it could lead to misuse and would not support the development of research capacity within Malawi. They recommended use of broad consent or tiered consent and establishment of biobanks to address these concerns. Study findings highlighted the need for a review of the current regulatory guideline and the development of infrastructure to support the use of stored biological samples for future use among the research community in Malawi. At the moment, there are ethical and practical concerns arising from the collection, storage and secondary use of biological samples make it hard to reconcile scientific progress and the protection of participants.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is growing interest in the collection, storage and reuse of biological samples for future research. Storage and future use of biological samples raise ethical concerns and questions about approaches that safeguard the interests of participants. The situation is further complicated in Africa where there is a general lack of governing ethical frameworks that could guide the research community on appropriate approaches for sample storage and use. Furthermore, there is limited empirical data to guide development of such frameworks. A qualitative study to address this gap was conducted with key stakeholders in Malawi to understand their experiences and perspectives regarding storage and usage of samples for future research.
METHODS
This study conducted 13 in-depth interviews with ethics committee members, regulators and researchers, and five focus group discussions with community representatives and clinical trial participants in Malawi. Interviews and focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed.
RESULTS
On the current regulatory guidelines that governs the collection, storage and reuse of samples in Malawi, participants highlighted their different understanding of it, with some indicating that it prohibited the reuse and sharing of samples, while others believed it permitted. Views on the informed consent model used in Malawi, some stakeholders expressed that the current model limited options for sample contributors regarding future use. Researchers supported storing samples for future use in order to maximize their value and reduce research costs. However, they expressed concern over the exportation of samples highlighting that it could lead to misuse and would not support the development of research capacity within Malawi. They recommended use of broad consent or tiered consent and establishment of biobanks to address these concerns.
CONCLUSIONS
Study findings highlighted the need for a review of the current regulatory guideline and the development of infrastructure to support the use of stored biological samples for future use among the research community in Malawi. At the moment, there are ethical and practical concerns arising from the collection, storage and secondary use of biological samples make it hard to reconcile scientific progress and the protection of participants.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32689995
doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00503-4
pii: 10.1186/s12910-020-00503-4
pmc: PMC7372640
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
61Subventions
Organisme : University of Malawi, College of Medicine
ID : none
Pays : International
Références
AIDS. 2013 Jan 28;27(3):303-12
pubmed: 23135167
BMC Med Ethics. 2011 Mar 18;12:5
pubmed: 21418562
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Oct 18;15:76
pubmed: 25326753
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Sep 11;14:35
pubmed: 24025667
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015 Jul;10(3):264-77
pubmed: 26297748
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Feb 2;18(1):8
pubmed: 28153006
Bioethics. 2008 May;22(4):203-8
pubmed: 18405318
BMC Med Ethics. 2007 Oct 26;8:11
pubmed: 17963497
BMC Med Ethics. 2012 Jul 25;13:19
pubmed: 22831568
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Aug 19;16:54
pubmed: 26286519
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Dec 02;16(1):83
pubmed: 26626016
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Oct 10;17(1):57
pubmed: 27724893