• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Research participants and stakeholders' views on feedback of genetic research findings: a qualitative study of the H3Africa Kidney Disease Research Network in Ghana.研究参与者和利益相关者对基因研究结果反馈的看法:加纳H3Africa肾脏疾病研究网络的定性研究
BMC Nephrol. 2025 Jul 8;26(1):366. doi: 10.1186/s12882-025-04295-w.
2
Adapting Safety Plans for Autistic Adults with Involvement from the Autism Community.在自闭症群体的参与下为成年自闭症患者调整安全计划。
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):293-302. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0124. eCollection 2025 Jun.
3
"Just Ask What Support We Need": Autistic Adults' Feedback on Social Skills Training.“只需询问我们需要什么支持”:成年自闭症患者对社交技能培训的反馈
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):283-292. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0136. eCollection 2025 Jun.
4
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.医疗专业人员在急症医院环境中团队合作教育的经验:对定性文献的系统综述
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.
5
"In a State of Flow": A Qualitative Examination of Autistic Adults' Phenomenological Experiences of Task Immersion.“心流状态”:对自闭症成年人任务沉浸现象学体验的质性研究
Autism Adulthood. 2024 Sep 16;6(3):362-373. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0032. eCollection 2024 Sep.
6
Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.社区居住的老年人跌倒预防干预措施:系统评价和荟萃分析的益处、危害以及患者的价值观和偏好。
Syst Rev. 2024 Nov 26;13(1):289. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02681-3.
7
"I Don't Understand Their Sense of Belonging": Exploring How Nonbinary Autistic Adults Experience Gender.“我不理解他们的归属感”:探索非二元性别的自闭症成年人如何体验性别。
Autism Adulthood. 2024 Dec 2;6(4):462-473. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0071. eCollection 2024 Dec.
8
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
9
Access Points: Understanding Special Interests Through Autistic Narratives.切入点:通过自闭症患者的叙述理解特殊利益群体。
Autism Adulthood. 2025 Feb 5;7(1):100-111. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0157. eCollection 2025 Feb.
10
How lived experiences of illness trajectories, burdens of treatment, and social inequalities shape service user and caregiver participation in health and social care: a theory-informed qualitative evidence synthesis.疾病轨迹的生活经历、治疗负担和社会不平等如何影响服务使用者和照顾者参与健康和社会护理:一项基于理论的定性证据综合分析
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Jun;13(24):1-120. doi: 10.3310/HGTQ8159.

本文引用的文献

1
Epistemic justice, African values and feedback of findings in African genomics research.认知正义、非洲价值观与非洲基因组学研究中的结果反馈
Glob Bioeth. 2022 Sep 21;33(1):122-132. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2022.2124019. eCollection 2022.
2
Perspectives and experiences of researchers regarding feedback of incidental genomic research findings: A qualitative study.研究者对偶然发现的基因组研究结果反馈的看法和经验:一项定性研究。
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 29;17(8):e0273657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273657. eCollection 2022.
3
Should institutions fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research?机构是否应该为基因组研究中个体发现的反馈提供资金?
J Med Ethics. 2024 Jul 23;50(8):569-574. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107992.
4
Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study.肯尼亚对向研究参与者和社区个体和综合基因组研究结果的看法:一项定性研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Mar 18;23(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00767-y.
5
Guideline for feedback of individual genetic research findings for genomics research in Africa.非洲基因组学研究中个体遗传研究结果反馈指南。
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Jan;7(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007184.
6
Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study.研究人员对向研究参与者反馈个人基因检测结果的看法:一项定性研究。
Glob Bioeth. 2021 Mar 9;32(1):15-33. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2021.1896453.
7
Informed consent in genomic research and biobanking: taking feedback of findings seriously.基因组研究和生物样本库中的知情同意:认真对待研究结果反馈
Glob Bioeth. 2020 Feb 23;31(1):200-215. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2020.1717896.
8
What constitutes good ethical practice in genomic research in Africa? Perspectives of participants in a genomic research study in Uganda.非洲基因组研究中的良好道德实践包括什么?乌干达一项基因组研究参与者的观点。
Glob Bioeth. 2019 Mar 24;31(1):169-183. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2019.1592867.
9
Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research?团结和互惠义务是否迫使非洲研究人员在基因组学研究中反馈个人基因结果?
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Nov 4;21(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00549-4.
10
Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why.理解研究参与者看重的信息是什么,以及为什么。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Mar;38(3):399-407. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05046.

研究参与者和利益相关者对基因研究结果反馈的看法:加纳H3Africa肾脏疾病研究网络的定性研究

Research participants and stakeholders' views on feedback of genetic research findings: a qualitative study of the H3Africa Kidney Disease Research Network in Ghana.

作者信息

Gafa Grace Larbie, Boima Vincent, Rockson Isabella, Chatio Samuel T, Ghansah Anita, Salako Babatunde L, Ojo Akinlolu, Tindana Paulina Onvomaha, Adu Dwomoa

机构信息

H3-Africa Kidney Disease Research Network, University of Ghana, Korle- bu, Accra, Ghana.

Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana Medical School, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana.

出版信息

BMC Nephrol. 2025 Jul 8;26(1):366. doi: 10.1186/s12882-025-04295-w.

DOI:10.1186/s12882-025-04295-w
PMID:40629281
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12239353/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that variants of the Apolipoprotein L1 gene in Africans and people of African descent increase the risk of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD). A study conducted by the H3Africa Kidney Disease Research Network showed that 28.2% of the Ghanaian study population carried 2 APOL1 high-risk variants. Relatives of patients with CKD may be at increased risk of developing CKD. Researchers of this project are faced with an ethical dilemma of whether, study participants and their relatives should be informed about their risk of developing CKD. The aim of this study was to investigate perspectives of research participants and other research stakeholders on returning individual genetic findings and aggregate results related to the kidney disease research at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana.

METHODS

This study was conducted under the auspices of the H3Africa Community Engagement and Biobanking in Genomics collaborative project. An exploratory qualitative approach was employed utilising in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and deliberative workshops. Participants included genomic researchers, research participants, family members and members of the research ethics committee affiliated with the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital and the Ghana Health Service in Accra, Ghana. Thematic analysis was performed using NVivo qualitative analysis software (version 12) to examine perspectives on what results to return, who should receive these results and how they should be communicated.

RESULTS

There was consensus among the key stakeholders interviewed that both validated individual genetic results and aggregate results from the kidney disease research should be communicated to research participants and their relatives, as well as aggregate research results to communities. Most research participants expressed a preference for receiving individual genetic results through direct communication from a medical doctor or research scientist. Participants also suggested the use of traditional media to communicate aggregate results to broader communities.

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that there are compelling reasons for communicating both individual and aggregate genetic research results related to kidney disease research with participants, their relatives and communities. More efforts should be invested in educating research participants, families and communities about the risks associated with the APOL1 risk variants prior to returning these results. Additionally, research teams should explore innovative communication strategies to support the feedback process and to promote public engagement in genetic and genomic research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

摘要

背景

有证据表明,非洲人和非洲裔人群中载脂蛋白L1基因的变异会增加患慢性肾脏病(CKD)的风险。H3非洲肾脏疾病研究网络开展的一项研究显示,加纳研究人群中有28.2%携带2个APOL1高风险变异。CKD患者的亲属患CKD的风险可能会增加。该项目的研究人员面临着一个伦理困境,即是否应告知研究参与者及其亲属他们患CKD的风险。本研究的目的是调查加纳大阿克拉地区科勒布教学医院的研究参与者和其他研究利益相关者对于返回与肾脏疾病研究相关的个体基因结果和汇总结果的看法。

方法

本研究在H3非洲基因组学社区参与和生物样本库合作项目的支持下进行。采用探索性定性研究方法,运用深度访谈、焦点小组讨论和审议研讨会。参与者包括基因组研究人员、研究参与者、家庭成员以及与加纳阿克拉的科勒布教学医院和加纳卫生服务机构相关的研究伦理委员会成员。使用NVivo定性分析软件(版本12)进行主题分析,以研究关于返回哪些结果、谁应接收这些结果以及应如何传达这些结果的看法。

结果

接受访谈的主要利益相关者达成共识,即经过验证的个体基因结果和肾脏疾病研究的汇总结果都应传达给研究参与者及其亲属,汇总研究结果也应传达给社区。大多数研究参与者表示倾向于通过医生或研究科学家直接沟通来接收个体基因结果。参与者还建议使用传统媒体将汇总结果传达给更广泛的社区。

结论

该研究得出结论,有令人信服的理由向参与者、他们的亲属和社区传达与肾脏疾病研究相关的个体和汇总基因研究结果。在返回这些结果之前,应投入更多努力对研究参与者、家庭和社区进行教育,使其了解与APOL1风险变异相关的风险。此外,研究团队应探索创新的沟通策略,以支持反馈过程并促进公众参与基因和基因组研究。

试验注册

不适用。