Suppr超能文献

“当他们看到我们时,就好像看到了好处!”:肯尼亚海岸社区研究中研究利益谈判的经历

"When they see us, it's like they have seen the benefits!": experiences of study benefits negotiations in community-based studies on the Kenyan Coast.

作者信息

Kamuya Dorcas M, Marsh Vicki, Njuguna Patricia, Munywoki Patrick, Parker Michael, Molyneux Sassy

机构信息

The Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, United Kingdom.

KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Dec 24;15:90. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-90.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Benefit sharing in health research has been the focus of international debates for many years, particularly in developing countries. Whilst increasing attention is being given to frameworks that can guide researchers to determine levels of benefits to participants, there is little empirical research from developing countries on the practical application of these frameworks, including in situations of extreme poverty and vulnerability. In addition, the voices of those who often negotiate and face issues related to benefits in practice - frontline researchers and fieldworkers (FWs) - are rarely included in these debates. Against this background, this paper reports on experiences of negotiating research participation and benefits as described by fieldworkers, research participants and researchers in two community based studies.

METHODS

The findings reported here are from a broader social science study that explored the nature of interactions between fieldworkers and participants in two community based studies on the Kenyan Coast. Between January and July 2010, data were collected using participant observation, and through group discussions and in-depth interviews with 42 fieldworkers, 4 researchers, and 40 study participants.

RESULTS

Participants highly appreciated the benefits provided by studies, particularly health care benefits. Fieldworkers were seen by participants and other community members as the gatekeepers and conduits of benefits, even though those were not their formal roles. Fieldworkers found it challenging to ignore participant and community requests for more benefits, especially in situations of extreme poverty. However, responding to requests by providing different sorts and levels of benefits over time, as inadvertently happened in one study, raised expectations of further benefits and led to continuous negotiations between fieldworkers and participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Fieldworkers play an important intermediary role in research; a role imbued with multiple challenges and ethical dilemmas for which they require appropriate support. Further more specific empirical research is needed to inform the development of guidance for researchers on benefit sharing, and on responding to emergency humanitarian needs for this and other similar settings.

摘要

背景

多年来,卫生研究中的利益分享一直是国际辩论的焦点,尤其是在发展中国家。虽然越来越多的注意力被放在能够指导研究人员确定参与者受益水平的框架上,但来自发展中国家关于这些框架实际应用的实证研究却很少,包括在极端贫困和脆弱的情况下。此外,那些在实践中经常参与谈判并面临利益相关问题的人——一线研究人员和现场工作人员(FWs)——的声音在这些辩论中很少被提及。在此背景下,本文报告了两项社区研究中的现场工作人员、研究参与者和研究人员所描述的关于谈判研究参与和利益的经历。

方法

此处报告的研究结果来自一项更广泛的社会科学研究,该研究探讨了肯尼亚海岸两项社区研究中现场工作人员与参与者之间互动的性质。2010年1月至7月期间,通过参与观察、小组讨论以及对42名现场工作人员、4名研究人员和40名研究参与者的深入访谈收集数据。

结果

参与者高度赞赏研究提供的利益,尤其是医疗保健利益。参与者和其他社区成员将现场工作人员视为利益的守门人和传递者,尽管这并非他们的正式角色。现场工作人员发现,忽视参与者和社区对更多利益的请求具有挑战性,尤其是在极端贫困的情况下。然而,随着时间的推移通过提供不同种类和水平的利益来回应请求,就像在一项研究中无意中发生的那样,提高了对进一步利益的期望,并导致现场工作人员和参与者之间持续进行谈判。

结论

现场工作人员在研究中发挥着重要的中介作用;这一角色充满了多重挑战和道德困境,他们需要适当的支持。此外,需要进行更具体的实证研究,为研究人员制定利益分享指导以及应对此类和其他类似情况下的紧急人道主义需求提供参考。

相似文献

8
What are fair study benefits in international health research? Consulting community members in Kenya.
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 3;9(12):e113112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113112. eCollection 2014.
9
Individual risk and community benefit in international research.
J Med Ethics. 2012 Oct;38(10):626-9. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100171. Epub 2012 May 5.
10
Because we can: clashes of perspective over researcher obligation in the failed PrEP trials.
Dev World Bioeth. 2011 Aug;11(2):63-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2010.00292.x. Epub 2011 Jan 25.

引用本文的文献

4
'Working relationships' across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research.
Wellcome Open Res. 2022 Jan 13;7:13. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17192.1. eCollection 2022.
5
Culturally responsive research ethics: How the socio-ethical norms of Arr-nar/Kreng-jai inform research participation at the Thai-Myanmar border.
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023 May 4;3(5):e0001875. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001875. eCollection 2023.
8
Rethinking benefit sharing in collaborative human genetic research from an Afrocommunitarian perspective.
Front Genet. 2022 Oct 12;13:1014120. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1014120. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Experiencing everyday ethics in context: frontline data collectors perspectives and practices of bioethics.
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Dec;98:361-70. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.013. Epub 2013 Oct 25.
5
Profile: The Kilifi Health and Demographic Surveillance System (KHDSS).
Int J Epidemiol. 2012 Jun;41(3):650-7. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys062. Epub 2012 Apr 28.
9
Community researchers conducting health disparities research: Ethical and other insights from fieldwork journaling.
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Jul;73(1):145-52. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.04.029. Epub 2011 May 30.
10
Getting personal: ethics and identity in global health research.
Dev World Bioeth. 2011 Aug;11(2):82-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2011.00297.x. Epub 2011 Mar 22.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验