Consulting communities on feedback of genetic findings in international health research: sharing sickle cell disease and carrier information in coastal Kenya

BMC Medical Ethics

Sassy Molyneux⁴  Michael Parker⁴  Thomas N Williams¹  Raymond Fitzpatrick²  Francis Kombe³  Vicki Marsh⁴ 

[1]Department of Medicine, Imperial College, St Mary’s Hospital, London W21NY, UK

[2]Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road Campus, Old Road, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK

[3]Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) Wellcome Trust Research Programme, PO Box 230, Kilifi 80108, Kenya

[4]Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road Campus, Old Road, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK

关键词: Empirical ethics;    Deliberative methods;    Genetic and genomics research;    Genetic findings;    Community consultation;    Sickle cell disease;    Africa;    Kenya;   

Others  :  799647
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-14-41

 received in 2013-01-04, accepted in 2013-09-13,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

International health research in malaria-endemic settings may include screening for sickle cell disease, given the relationship between this important genetic condition and resistance to malaria, generating questions about whether and how findings should be disclosed. The literature on disclosing genetic findings in the context of research highlights the role of community consultation in understanding and balancing ethically important issues from participants’ perspectives, including social forms of benefit and harm, and the influence of access to care. To inform research practice locally, and contribute to policy more widely, this study aimed to explore the views of local residents in Kilifi County in coastal Kenya on how researchers should manage study-generated information on sickle cell disease and carrier status.

Methods

Between June 2010 and July 2011, we consulted 62 purposively selected Kilifi residents on how researchers should manage study-generated sickle cell disease findings. Methods drew on a series of deliberative informed small group discussions. Data were analysed thematically, using charts, to describe participants’ perceptions of the importance of disclosing findings, including reasoning, difference and underlying values. Themes were derived from the underlying research questions and from issues emerging from discussions. Data interpretation drew on relevant areas of social science and bioethics literature.

Results

Perceived health and social benefits generated strong support for disclosing findings on sickle cell disease, but the balance of social benefits and harms was less clear for sickle cell trait. Many forms of health and social benefits and harms of information-sharing were identified, with important underlying values related to family interests and the importance of openness. The influence of micro and macro level contextual features and prioritization of values led to marked diversity of opinion.

Conclusions

The approach demonstrates a high ethical importance in many malaria endemic low-to-middle income country settings of disclosing sickle cell disease findings generated during research, alongside provision of effective care and locally-informed counselling. Since these services are central to the benefits of disclosure, health researchers whose studies include screening for sickle cell disease should actively promote the development of health policy and services for this condition in situations of unmet need, including through the prior development of collaborative partnerships with government health managers and providers. Community consultation can importantly enrich ethical debate on research practice where in-depth exploration of informed views and the potential for difference are taken into account.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Marsh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Piel FB, et al.: Global epidemiology of sickle haemoglobin in neonates: a contemporary geostatistical model-based map and population estimates. Lancet 2013, 381(9861):142-151.
• [2]Weatherall DJ: Inherited Disorders of Hemoglobin. In Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. Edited by Jamison DT. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006:663-680.
• [3]Rees DC, Williams TN, Gladwin MT: Sickle-cell disease. Lancet 2010, 376(9757):2018-2031.
• [4]Weatherall DJ, Clegg JB: Inherited haemoglobin disorders: an increasing global health problem. Bull World Health Organ 2001, 79(8):704-712.
• [5]WHO: Genomics and World Health: Report of the Advisory Committee on Heath Research. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
• [6]Telfer P, et al.: Clinical outcomes in children with sickle cell disease living in England: a neonatal cohort in East London. Haematologica 2007, 92(7):905-912.
• [7]Grosse SD, et al.: The Jamaican historical experience of the impact of educational interventions on sickle cell disease child mortality. Am J Prev Med 2012, 42(6):e101-e103.
• [8]Makani J, Williams TN, Marsh K: Sickle cell disease in Africa: burden and research priorities. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 2007, 101(1):3-14.
• [9]Ohene-Frempong K: Newborn screening for Sickle Cell Disease in Ghana 2005. 2nd edition. 2005. [cited 2011; Available from: http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=76368 webcite
• [10]Fullwiley D: Biosocial suffering:Order and illness in urban West Africa. BioSocieties 2006, 1:421-438.
• [11]WHO: Medical genetic services in developing countries: The ethical, legal and social implications of genetic testing and screening. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.
• [12]Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS: Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 2006, 6(6):8-17.
• [13]Knoppers BM, et al.: The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet 2006, 14(11):1170-1178.
• [14]Miller FA, Robert JS, Hayeems RZ: Questioning the consensus: managing carrier status results generated by newborn screening. Am J Public Health 2009, 99(2):210-215.
• [15]Sharp RR, Foster MW: Clinical utility and full disclosure of genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 2006, 6(6):42-44. author reply W10-2
• [16]Miller FA: The complex promise of newborn screening. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2009, 6(3):142-148.
• [17]Bazuaye G, Olayemi E: Knowledge and attitude of senior secondary school students in Benin City Nigeria to Sickle Cell Disease. World Journal of Medical Sciences 2009, 4(1):46-49.
• [18]Sickle Cell Foundation Nigeria: Bringing Hope to the African Child. 2011. [cited 2012 13/12/2012]; Available from: http://www.sicklecellfoundation.com/services.php webcite
• [19]Belsky L, Richardson HS: Medical researchers’ ancillary clinical care responsibilities. BMJ 2004, 328(7454):1494-1496.
• [20]Kamuya D, et al.: Engaging communities to strengthen research ethics in low-income settings: selection and perceptions of members of a network in coastal Kenya. Developing World Bioethics 2013, 3:10-20.
• [21]Marsh V, et al.: Beginning community engagement at a busy biomedical research programme: experiences from the KEMRI CGMRC-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi Kenya. Soc Sci Med 2008, 67(5):721-733.
• [22]Emanuel EJ, et al.: What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis 2004, 189(5):930-937.
• [23]Participants at an International Workshop on Informed Consent and Community Engagement: Consent and Community Engagement in diverse research contexts: reviewing and developing research and practice. Journal of Emprical Research in Health Research Ethics 2013. in press
• [24]Parker M: Public deliberation and private choice in genetics and reproduction. J Med Ethics 2000, 26(3):160-5.
• [25]Parker M, et al.: Ethical data release in genome-wide association studies in developing countries. PLoS Med 2009, 6(11):e1000143.
• [26]Sharp RR, Foster MW: Community Involvement in the Ethical Review of Genetic Research: Lessons from American Indian and Alaska Native Populations. Environ Health Perspect Suppl 2002, 110(2):145-148.
• [27]Marsh VM, et al.: Experiences with community engagement and informed consent in a genetic cohort study of severe childhood diseases in Kenya. BMC Medical Ethics 2010, 11:13. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Virtual Kenya: Virtual Kenya. 2011. Available from: http://www.virtualkenya.org/maps/map-images/422-chapter-2-spatial-patterns-of-poverty-and-human-well-being webcite
• [29]Cowgill KD, et al.: Effectiveness of Haemophilus influenzae type b Conjugate vaccine introduction into routine childhood immunization in Kenya. JAMA 2006, 296(6):671-8.
• [30]Parkin D: Sacred Void: Spatial images of work and ritual among the Giriama of Kenya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
• [31]Molyneux S, et al.: Benefits and payments for research participants: Experiences and views from a research centre on the Kenyan coast. BMC Medical Ethics 2012, 13:13. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Marsh VM, Kamuya DM, Molyneux SS: 'All her children are born that way’: gendered experiences of stigma in families affected by sickle cell disorder in rural Kenya. Ethn Health 2011, 16(4–5):343-59.
• [33]Molyneux CS, Peshu N, Marsh K: Understanding of informed consent in a low-income setting: three case studies from the Kenyan Coast. Soc Sci Med 2004, 59(12):2547-59.
• [34]Parker M: A Deliberative Approach to Bioethics. In Healthcare Ethics and Human Values. Edited by Fulford K, Dickenson D, Murray T. Oxford: Blackwell; 2002:29-35.
• [35]Ives J: 'Encounters with experience’: empirical bioethics and the future. Health Care Anal 2008, 16(1):1-6.
• [36]Ives J, Draper H: Appropriate methodologies for empirical bioethics: it’s all relative. Bioethics 2009, 23(4):249-58.
• [37]Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for health research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2007.
• [38]Shaw A: The Contingency of the 'Genetic Link’ in Constructions of Kinship and Inheritance - An Anthropological Perspective. In Freedom and Responsibility in Reproductive Choice. Edited by Spencer J, Du Bois-Pedain A, Spencer J, Du Bois-Pedain A. Cambridge: Hart Publishing; 2006:77.
• [39]Horstman K, Finkler K: Genetics, health care, family and kinship in a global perspective: situated processes of co-construction. Soc Sci Med 2011, 72(11):1739-42.
• [40]Molyneux CS, et al.: Intra-household relations and treatment decision-making for childhood illness: a Kenyan case study. J Biosoc Sci 2002, 34(1):109-31.
• [41]Featherstone K: Mutual Surveillance. In Risky Relations. Oxford: Berg; 2006:73-91.
• [42]Lindemann Nelson H, Lindemann Nelson J: The Patient in the Family: an Ethics of Medicine and Families. London: Routledge; 1995.
• [43]Marsh VM: Managing misaligned paternity findings in research including sickle cell disease screening in Kenya: 'Consulting communities’ to inform policy. Soc Sci Med 2013, 96:192e-199.
• [44]European Society of Human, G: Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors: Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 2009, 17(6):720-1.
• [45]Ossorio PN: Letting the gene out of the bottle: a comment on returning individual research results to participants. Am J Bioeth 2006, 6(6):24-5. author reply W10-2
• [46]Fabsitz RR, et al.: Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics 2010, 3(6):574-80.
• [47]Participants at the 2001 Conference on Ethical Aspects of Research in Developing Countries: Moral standards for research in developing countries: from “fair benefits” to “fair benefits”. Hastings Cent Rep 2004, 34(3):17-27.
• [48]Widdershoven G, Abma T, Molewijk B: Empirical ethics as dialogical practice. Bioethics 2009, 23(4):236-48.
• [49]Dunn M, et al.: Toward methodological innovation in empirical ethics research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2012, 21(4):466-80.