Ethical Issues in Glaucoma Genomic Research: Perspectives and Preferences of Potential Research Participants in Enugu,Southeast Nigeria

Abstract

Genomic research is challenged by many ethical issues, especially in low-resource locations. To determine the views and perspectives of research participants regarding these ethical challenges, two hundred and eight potential research participants were interviewed. Views regarding basic genetic knowledge, return of research results and incidental findings and secondary data use were elicited. Overall, 87.5% of participants were aware of genomic research. About 95.7% of participants had poor basic genetic knowledge, while 15.4% had an understanding of the concept of genetic research. Most participants (92.3% and 82.2% respectively) expressed preference for return of research results and incidental findings. One hundred and forty-nine participants (71.6%) expressed reservation regarding future unspecified use of their blood sample and medical information while 76.4% expressed concern regarding data sharing with other researchers. Optimal consideration should be given to participants’ preferences in the design of genomic research protocols.

Keywords

genomic research genetic knowledge return of research findings incidental findings glaucoma genomic research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adebamowo

S. N.

Francis

Tambo

Diallo

S. H.

Landouré

Nembaware

Dareng

Muhamed

Odutola

Akeredolu

(2018). Implementation of genomics research in Africa: Challenges and recommendations. Global Health Action, 11(1), 1419033. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1419033

Anie

K. A.

Olayemi

Paintsil

Owusu-Dabo

Adeyemo

T. A.

Sani

M. U.

Galadanci

N. A.

Nnodu

Tluway

Adjei

D. N.

(2021). Sickle cell disease genomics of Africa (SickleGenAfrica) network: Ethical framework and initial qualitative findings from community engagement in Ghana, Nigeria and Tanzania. BMJ Open, 11(7), e048208. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048208

Artal

Rubenfeld

(2017). Ethical issues in research. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 43, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.12.006

Beskow

L. M.

Burke

Fullerton

S. M.

Sharp

R. R.

(2012). Offering aggregate results to participants in genomic research: Opportunities and challenges. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 490–496. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.62

Bollinger

J. M.

Scott

Dvoskin

Kaufman

(2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: Findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.66

Carrieri

Bewshea

Walker

Ahmad

Bowen

Hall

Kelly

(2016). Ethical issues and best practice in clinically based genomic research: Exeter stakeholders meeting report. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(11), 695–697. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103530

Caulfield

McGuire

A. L.

Cho

Buchanan

J. A.

Burgess

M. M.

Danilczyk

Diaz

C. M.

Fryer-Edwards

Green

S. K.

Hodosh

M. A.

(2008). Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: Consensus statement. PLoS Biology, 6(3), e73. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060073

Chapman

Likhanov

Selita

Zakharov

Smith-Woolley

Kovas

(2019). New literacy challenge for the twenty-first century: Genetic knowledge is poor even among well educated. Journal of Community Genetics, 10, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-018-0363-7

Condit

C. M.

(2010). Public understandings of genetics and health. Clinical Genetics, 77(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01316.x

10.

Cuccaro

M. L.

Manrique

C. P.

Quintero

M. A.

Martinez

McCauley

J. L.

(2020). Understanding participation in genetic research among patients with multiple sclerosis: The influences of ethnicity, gender, education, and age. Frontiers in Genetics, 11, 120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00120

11.

Daack-Hirsch

Driessnack

Hanish

Johnson

V. A.

Shah

L. L.

Simon

C. M.

Williams

(2013). Information is information’: A public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clinical Genetics, 84(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12167

12.

Fagbemiro

Adebamowo

(2014). Knowledge and attitudes to personal genomics testing for complex diseases among Nigerians. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-34

13.

Fernandez

C. V.

Kodish

Weijer

(2003). Informing study participants of research results: An ethical imperative. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 25(3), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/3564300

14.

Hauser

M. A.

Allingham

R. R.

Aung

Van Der Heide

C. J.

Taylor

K. D.

Rotter

J. I.

Wang

S.-H. J.

Bonnemaijer

P. W.

Williams

S. E.

Abdullahi

S. M.

(2019). Association of genetic variants with primary open-angle glaucoma among individuals with African ancestry. Jama, 322(17), 1682–1691. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.16161

15.

Kyari

Entekume

Rabiu

Spry

Wormald

Nolan

Murthy

G. V.

Gilbert

C. E.

(2015). A population-based survey of the prevalence and types of glaucoma in Nigeria: Results from the Nigeria national blindness and visual impairment survey. BMC Ophthalmology, 15(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-015-0160-6

16.

Maxmen

(2020). The next chapter for African genomics. Nature, 578(7795), 350–354. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00454-1

17.

McClellan

J. M.

Lehner

King

M.-C.

(2017). Gene discovery for complex traits: Lessons from Africa. Cell, 171(2), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.037

18.

Ngene

S. O.

Adedokun

Adejumo

Olopade

(2018). Breast cancer genetics knowledge and testing intentions among Nigerian professional women. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 27, 863–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0194-4

19.

Nuytemans

Manrique

C. P.

Uhlenberg

Scott

W. K.

Cuccaro

M. L.

Luca

C. C.

Singer

Vance

J. M.

(2019). Motivations for participation in Parkinson disease genetic research among Hispanics versus non-Hispanics. Frontiers in Genetics, 10, 658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00658

20.

Ogunrin

Woolfall

Gabbay

Frith

(2018). Relative solidarity: Conceptualising communal participation in genomic research among potential research participants in a developing Sub-Saharan African setting. PLoS One, 13(4), e0195171. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195171

21.

Olawoye

Chuka-Okosa

Akpa

Realini

Hauser

Ashaye

(2021). Eyes of Africa: The genetics of blindness: Study design and methodology. BMC Ophthalmology, 21(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02029-8

22.

Purvis

R. S.

Long

C. R.

Eisenberg

L. R.

Hester

D. M.

Cunningham

T. V.

Holland

Chatrathi

H. E.

McElfish

P. A.

(2020). First do no harm: Ethical concerns of health researchers that discourage the sharing of results with research participants. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 11(2), 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1737980

23.

Rotimi

C. N.

Marshall

P. A.

(2010). Tailoring the process of informed consent in genetic and genomic research. Genome Medicine, 2(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/gm141

24.

Sabatello

Chen

Sanderson

S. C.

Chung

W. K.

Appelbaum

P. S.

(2019). Increasing genomic literacy among adolescents. Genetics in Medicine, 21(4), 994–1000. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0275-2

25.

Sanderson

S. C.

Diefenbach

M. A.

Zinberg

Horowitz

C. R.

Smirnoff

Zweig

Streicher

Jabs

E. W.

Richardson

L. D.

(2013). Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: A structured interview study. Journal of Community Genetics, 4(4), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-013-0154-0

26.

Singh

Cadigan

R. J.

Moodley

(2023). Related stakeholders’ perspectives on sociocultural considerations in biobanking practice in South Africa. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 21(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2021.0149

27.

Townsend

Adam

Birch

P. H.

Lohn

Rousseau

Friedman

J. M.

(2012). “I want to know what’s in Pandora’s box”: Comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 158(10), 2519–2525. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.35554

28.

Trinidad

S. B.

Fullerton

S. M.

Bares

J. M.

Jarvik

G. P.

Larson

E. B.

Burke

(2010). Genomic research and wide data sharing: Views of prospective participants. Genetics in Medicine, 12(8), 486–495. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181e38f9e

29.

Vears

D. F.

Minion

J. T.

Roberts

S. J.

Cummings

Machirori

Blell

Budin-Ljøsne

Cowley

Dyke

S. O.

Gaff

(2021). Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. PLoS One, 16(11), e0258646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258646

30.

Weinreb

R. N.

Aung

Medeiros

F. A.

(2014). The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: A review. Jama, 311(18), 1901–1911. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.3192

31.

Wolf

S. M.

Lawrenz

F. P.

Nelson

C. A.

Kahn

J. P.

Cho

M. K.

Clayton

E. W.

Fletcher

J. G.

Georgieff

M. K.

Hammerschmidt

Hudson

(2008). Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 36(2), 219–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x

32.

Young

M.-A.

(2013). The responses of research participants and their next of kin to receiving feedback of genetic test results following participation in the Australian ovarian cancer study. Genetics in Medicine, 15(6), 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.154

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB