Rapid Bioethical Assessment for
Consent
Ethiopia
Rapid ethical assessment
genomics
tuberculosis
Journal
Ethiopian journal of health sciences
ISSN: 2413-7170
Titre abrégé: Ethiop J Health Sci
Pays: Ethiopia
ID NLM: 101224773
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
received:
02
11
2022
accepted:
10
02
2023
medline:
16
8
2023
pubmed:
14
8
2023
entrez:
14
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Rapid Ethical Assessment (REA) is a rapid qualitative study anticipated to understand the ethical sphere of the research setting prior to recruiting study subjects. This study assessed the communities' knowledge about tuberculosis (TB) and research, understand the social arrangements advisable for recruiting research participant and appraised the information provision and consent process. The study was conducted in Amhara region, Ethiopia from 5 Over 71% of researchers were not satisfied with the current consent process, and 82.7% of researchers agreed that the best interest of the research participants was not adequately addressed in the current research practices in ANRS. TB patients and healthy controls misunderstood research and its goals. Participants advised the researchers to approach the community with the assistance of health extension workers (HEW) or religious/local leaders. Combined use of verbal and written based information provision at individual participant level is the preferred way for information provision. The adherence of researchers to standard information provision and consent process was very low. Healthy controls and TB patients have low level of knowledge and awareness about research, ethics and genomic research-related common terms. Hence, public education is required to strengthen the research ethics in the region.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Rapid Ethical Assessment (REA) is a rapid qualitative study anticipated to understand the ethical sphere of the research setting prior to recruiting study subjects. This study assessed the communities' knowledge about tuberculosis (TB) and research, understand the social arrangements advisable for recruiting research participant and appraised the information provision and consent process.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
The study was conducted in Amhara region, Ethiopia from 5
Results
UNASSIGNED
Over 71% of researchers were not satisfied with the current consent process, and 82.7% of researchers agreed that the best interest of the research participants was not adequately addressed in the current research practices in ANRS. TB patients and healthy controls misunderstood research and its goals. Participants advised the researchers to approach the community with the assistance of health extension workers (HEW) or religious/local leaders. Combined use of verbal and written based information provision at individual participant level is the preferred way for information provision.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The adherence of researchers to standard information provision and consent process was very low. Healthy controls and TB patients have low level of knowledge and awareness about research, ethics and genomic research-related common terms. Hence, public education is required to strengthen the research ethics in the region.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37576164
doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v33i3.4
pii: jEJHS.v33.i3.pg413
pmc: PMC10416330
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
413-422Informations de copyright
© 2023 Mekonnen D., et al.
Références
J Law Med. 2008 Oct;16(2):187-92
pubmed: 19009996
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Oct;83(4):743-7
pubmed: 20889858
Am J Hum Genet. 2015 Jun 4;96(6):986-91
pubmed: 26027499
Perspect Clin Res. 2011 Apr;2(2):72-6
pubmed: 21731859
Med Anthropol. 2013;32(4):309-24
pubmed: 23768217
AMA J Ethics. 2016 Jul 01;18(7):743-53
pubmed: 27437825
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Jul 02;14:25
pubmed: 23819555
Curr Biol. 2015 Dec 21;25(24):3260-6
pubmed: 26687624
Qual Assur. 2003 Apr-Jun;10(2):83-9
pubmed: 14660298
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012 Feb;7(1):37-52
pubmed: 22378133
Br Med J. 1964 Jul 18;2(5402):177
pubmed: 14150898
Eur J Health Law. 1994;1(2):161-5
pubmed: 11654540
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009 Jul 21;3(7):e482
pubmed: 19621067
C R Biol. 2003 Oct-Nov;326(10-11):1121-5
pubmed: 14744123
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Jul 4;20(1):43
pubmed: 31272443
BMC Med Ethics. 2009 Aug 22;10:13
pubmed: 19698115
J Natl Med Assoc. 1973 Jul;65(4):345-8
pubmed: 4728717
Turk Thorac J. 2015 Apr;16(2):73-85
pubmed: 29404082
N Engl J Med. 1958 Feb 27;258(9):407-16
pubmed: 13517493
New Bioeth. 2023 Mar;29(1):24-36
pubmed: 35972296
J Med Ethics. 2004 Feb;30(1):68-72
pubmed: 14872079
Qual Assur. 1998 Apr-Jun;6(2):65-74
pubmed: 10386329
Arch Intern Med. 2000 Mar 13;160(5):585-98
pubmed: 10724044
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2021 Mar 1;25(3):222-227
pubmed: 33688811
Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 11;9(1):18811
pubmed: 31827175
BMC Med Ethics. 2012 Dec 16;13:35
pubmed: 23241478
Science. 1964 Feb 7;143(3606):551-3
pubmed: 17815646
Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2008 Jan;4(1):e5
pubmed: 21614316
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 May 02;15:35
pubmed: 24885049