↓ Skip to main content

Understandings of genomic research in developing countries: a qualitative study of the views of MalariaGEN participants in Mali

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understandings of genomic research in developing countries: a qualitative study of the views of MalariaGEN participants in Mali
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0035-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karim Traore, Susan Bull, Alassane Niare, Salimata Konate, Mahamadou A. Thera, Dominic Kwiatkowski, Michael Parker, Ogobara K. Doumbo

Abstract

Obtaining informed consent for participation in genomic research in low-income settings presents specific ethical issues requiring attention. These include the challenges that arise when providing information about unfamiliar and technical research methods, the implications of complicated infrastructure and data sharing requirements, and the potential consequences of future research with samples and data. This study investigated researchers' and participants' parents' experiences of a consent process and understandings of a genome-wide association study of malaria involving children aged five and under in Mali. It aimed to inform best practices in recruiting participants into genomic research. A qualitative rapid ethical assessment was undertaken. Fifty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with the parents of research participants. An additional nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior research scientists, research assistants and with a member of an ethics committee. A focus group with five parents of research participants and direct observations of four consent processes were also conducted. French and translated English transcripts were descriptively and thematically coded using OpenCode software. Participants' parents in the MalariaGEN study had differing understandings of the causes of malaria, the rationale for collecting blood samples, the purposes of the study and the kinds of information the study would generate. Genomic aspects of the research, including the gene/environment interaction underlying susceptibility or resistance to severe malaria, proved particularly challenging to explain and understand. This study identifies a number of areas to be addressed in the design of consent processes for genomic research, some of which require careful ethical analysis. These include determining how much information should be provided about differing aspects of the research and how best to promote understandings of genomic research. We conclude that it is important to build capacity in the design and conduct of effective and appropriate consent processes for genomic research in low and middle-income settings. Additionally, consideration should be given to the role of review committees and community consultation activities in protecting the interests of participants in genomic research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Professor 8 7%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 19%
Social Sciences 18 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 21 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2015.
All research outputs
#5,394,723
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#459
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,499
of 239,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.