Participant recall and understandings of information on biobanking and future genomic research: experiences from a multi-disease community-based health screening and biobank platform in rural South Africa.
Biobanking
Ethics
Genomic research
Informed consent
Participant experiences
Researcher experiences
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 04 2022
18 04 2022
Historique:
received:
13
08
2021
accepted:
11
04
2022
entrez:
19
4
2022
pubmed:
20
4
2022
medline:
21
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Limited research has been conducted on explanations and understandings of biobanking for future genomic research in African contexts with low literacy and limited healthcare access. We report on the findings of a sub-study on participant understanding embedded in a multi-disease community health screening and biobank platform study known as 'Vukuzazi' in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with research participants who had been invited to take part in the Vukuzazi study, including both participants and non-participants, and research staff that worked on the study. The interviews were transcribed, and themes were identified from the interview transcripts, manually coded, and thematically analysed. Thirty-nine individuals were interviewed. We found that the research team explained biobanking and future genomic research by describing how hereditary characteristics create similarities among individuals. However, recollection and understanding of this explanation seven months after participation was variable. The large volume of information about the Vukuzazi study objectives and procedures presented a challenge to participant recall. By the time of interviews, some participants recalled rudimentary facts about the genetic aspects of the study, but many expressed little to no interest in genetics and biobanking. Participant's understanding of information related to genetics and biobanking provided during the consent process is affected by the volume of information as well as participant's interest (or lack thereof) in the subject matter being discussed. We recommend that future studies undertaking biobanking and genomic research treat explanations of this kind of research to participants as an on-going process of communication between researchers, participants and the community and that explanatory imagery and video graphic storytelling should be incorporated into theses explanations as these have previously been found to facilitate understanding among those with low literacy levels. Studies should also avoid having broader research objectives as this can divert participant's interest and therefore understanding of why their samples are being collected.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Limited research has been conducted on explanations and understandings of biobanking for future genomic research in African contexts with low literacy and limited healthcare access. We report on the findings of a sub-study on participant understanding embedded in a multi-disease community health screening and biobank platform study known as 'Vukuzazi' in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with research participants who had been invited to take part in the Vukuzazi study, including both participants and non-participants, and research staff that worked on the study. The interviews were transcribed, and themes were identified from the interview transcripts, manually coded, and thematically analysed.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine individuals were interviewed. We found that the research team explained biobanking and future genomic research by describing how hereditary characteristics create similarities among individuals. However, recollection and understanding of this explanation seven months after participation was variable. The large volume of information about the Vukuzazi study objectives and procedures presented a challenge to participant recall. By the time of interviews, some participants recalled rudimentary facts about the genetic aspects of the study, but many expressed little to no interest in genetics and biobanking.
CONCLUSION
Participant's understanding of information related to genetics and biobanking provided during the consent process is affected by the volume of information as well as participant's interest (or lack thereof) in the subject matter being discussed. We recommend that future studies undertaking biobanking and genomic research treat explanations of this kind of research to participants as an on-going process of communication between researchers, participants and the community and that explanatory imagery and video graphic storytelling should be incorporated into theses explanations as these have previously been found to facilitate understanding among those with low literacy levels. Studies should also avoid having broader research objectives as this can divert participant's interest and therefore understanding of why their samples are being collected.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35436913
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00782-z
pii: 10.1186/s12910-022-00782-z
pmc: PMC9014601
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
43Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K08 AI118538
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI152149
Pays : United States
Organisme : FIC NIH HHS
ID : R21 TW011687
Pays : United States
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jun 12;13(5):330-420
pubmed: 26455613
J Community Genet. 2011 Sep;2(3):153-63
pubmed: 22109822
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jan;58(2):379-90
pubmed: 14604623
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Feb 27;19(1):13
pubmed: 29482536
BMC Med Ethics. 2011 Mar 18;12:5
pubmed: 21418562
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Dec 03;16(1):86
pubmed: 26630924
Glob Bioeth. 2020 Feb 23;31(1):200-215
pubmed: 33343193
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Oct 15;20(1):71
pubmed: 31615491
Int J Epidemiol. 2021 Mar 3;50(1):33-34
pubmed: 33437994
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Jun 16;16:42
pubmed: 26077875
Biopreserv Biobank. 2015 Apr;13(2):98-106
pubmed: 25825819
BMJ. 1993 Apr 3;306(6882):885-90
pubmed: 8490411
Dev World Bioeth. 2019 Mar;19(1):9-17
pubmed: 29063669
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Oct;61(7):1463-73
pubmed: 16005781
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2016 Aug 31;17:375-93
pubmed: 26905784
Trials. 2015 Dec 29;16:591
pubmed: 26715077
Hastings Cent Rep. 2013 Sep-Oct;43(5):3-4
pubmed: 24092578
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Sep 09;16:60
pubmed: 26354520
Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):34-42
pubmed: 26305750
Clin Nurs Res. 2019 Jan;28(1):30-51
pubmed: 28745067
Front Vet Sci. 2016 Oct 20;3:92
pubmed: 27812525
J Med Ethics. 2016 Feb;42(2):132-7
pubmed: 26644426
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 May 17;7:44-47
pubmed: 29696167
Eur Respir J. 2007 Aug;30(2):373-82
pubmed: 17666560
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Jul;9(7):e967-e976
pubmed: 34143995
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Jul 4;20(1):45
pubmed: 31272489
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2010;11:361-81
pubmed: 20477535
Int Health. 2020 Nov 9;12(6):560-566
pubmed: 33165556
Int J Epidemiol. 2022 Jun 13;51(3):e131-e142
pubmed: 34849923
PLoS Med. 2007 Apr;4(4):e95
pubmed: 17455985
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013 Oct;8(4):42-52
pubmed: 24169421
BMC Med Ethics. 2012 Jul 02;13:15
pubmed: 22747883
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009 Jul 21;3(7):e482
pubmed: 19621067
Glob Bioeth. 2019 Mar 24;31(1):169-183
pubmed: 33343191
Genome Med. 2010 Mar 24;2(3):20
pubmed: 20346094
Acta Trop. 2009 Nov;112 Suppl 1:S21-31
pubmed: 19665983
J Epidemiol. 2012;22(4):308-16
pubmed: 22447213