2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      All you Need is Trust? Public Perspectives on Consenting to Participate in Genomic Research in the Sri Lankan District of Colombo

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Engagement with genomic medicine and research has increased globally during the past few decades, including rapid developments in Sri Lanka. Genomic research is carried out in Sri Lanka on a variety of scales and with different aims and perspectives. However, there are concerns about participants' understanding of genomic research, including the validity of informed consent. This article reports a qualitative study aiming to explore the understanding, knowledge, and attitudes of the Sri Lankan public towards genomic medicine and to inform the development of an effective and appropriate process for informed consent in that setting. Purposive sampling was employed. Participants were recruited from a sub-group of the public in Colombo, Sri Lanka who had either consented or refused to donate genetic material for a biobank. Data were collected using face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Conventional content analysis was used. The analysis developed three key themes: a) ‘Scientific literacy’ describes an apparent lack of scientific knowledge that seems to affect a participant’s ability to understand the research, b) ‘Motivation’ describes narratives about why participants chose (not) to take part in the research, despite not understanding it, and c) ‘Trust’ describes how trust served to mitigate the apparent ethical deficit created by not being fully informed. In this article, we argue that informed trust is likely an acceptable basis for consent, particularly in settings where scientific literacy might be low. However, researchers must work to be worthy of that trust and ensure that misconceptions are actively addressed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

          Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Implications of the Human Genome Project for medical science.

            The year 2000 marked both the start of the new millennium and the announcement that the vast majority of the human genome had been sequenced. Much work remains to understand how this "instruction book for human biology" carries out its multitudes of functions. But the consequences for the practice of medicine are likely to be profound. Genetic prediction of individual risks of disease and responsiveness to drugs will reach the medical mainstream in the next decade or so. The development of designer drugs, based on a genomic approach to targeting molecular pathways that are disrupted in disease, will follow soon after. Potential misuses of genetic information, such as discrimination in obtaining health insurance and in the workplace, will need to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. Genomic medicine holds the ultimate promise of revolutionizing the diagnosis and treatment of many illnesses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship?

              Over the last decade, patient and public involvement (PPI) has become a requisite in applied health research. Some funding bodies demand explicit evidence of PPI, while others have made a commitment to developing PPI in the projects they fund. Despite being commonplace, there remains a dearth of engagement with the ethical and theoretical underpinnings of PPI processes and practices. More specifically, while there is a small (but growing) body of literature examining the effectiveness and impact of PPI, there has been relatively little reflection on whether the concept/practice of PPI is internally coherent. Here, the authors unpick a 'paradox' within PPI, which highlights a tension between its moral and pragmatic motivations and its implementation. The authors argue that this 'professionalisation paradox' means we need to rethink the practice, and purpose, of PPI in research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                j.ives@bristol.ac.uk
                Journal
                Asian Bioeth Rev
                Asian Bioeth Rev
                Asian Bioethics Review
                Springer Nature Singapore (Singapore )
                1793-8759
                1793-9453
                29 November 2023
                29 November 2023
                April 2024
                : 16
                : 2
                : 281-302
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.450904.c, Institute for Research and Development in Health & Social Care, ; Battaramulla, Sri Lanka
                [2 ]Centre for Ethics in Medicine, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, ( https://ror.org/0524sp257) Bristol, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4841-5040
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9789-4335
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3780-0901
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9180-7023
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3609-4358
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8706-2698
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5233-5000
                Article
                269
                10.1007/s41649-023-00269-y
                10994890
                0b8b74d9-0a6f-4b07-8026-ade7c0843d8f
                © The Author(s) 2023, corrected publication 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 18 July 2023
                : 2 November 2023
                : 2 November 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010269, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 204106/Z/16/Z
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Custom metadata
                © National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024

                genomic medicine,research ethics,therapeutic misconception,informed consent,trust,lmic

                Comments

                Comment on this article