BackgroundCommunity engagement has been recognised as an important aspect of the ethical conduct of biomedical research, especially when research is focused on ethnically or culturally distinct populations. While this is a generally accepted tenet of biomedical research, it is unclear what components are necessary for effective community engagement, particularly in the context of genomic research in Africa.MethodsWe conducted a review of the published literature to identify the community engagement strategies that can support the successful implementation of genomic studies in Africa. Our search strategy involved using online databases, Pubmed (National Library of Medicine), Medline and Google scholar. Search terms included a combination of the following: community engagement, community advisory boards, community consultation, community participation, effectiveness, genetic and genomic research, Africa, developing countries.ResultsA total of 44 articles and 1 thesis were retrieved of which 38 met the selection criteria. Of these, 21 were primary studies on community engagement, while the rest were secondary reports on community engagement efforts in biomedical research studies. 34 related to biomedical research generally, while 4 were specific to genetic and genomic research in Africa.ConclusionWe concluded that there were several community engagement strategies that could support genomic studies in Africa. While many of the strategies could support the early stages of a research project such as the recruitment of research participants, further research is needed to identify effective strategies to engage research participants and their communities beyond the participant recruitment stage. Research is also needed to address how the views of local communities should be incorporated into future uses of human biological samples. Finally, studies evaluating the impact of CE on genetic research are lacking. Systematic evaluation of CE strategies is essential to determine the most effective models of CE for genetic and genomic research conducted in African settings.

IntroductionSchizophrenia and bipolar disorder account for a large proportion of the global burden of disease. Despite their enormous impact, little is known about their pathophysiology. Given the high heritability of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, unbiased genetic studies offer the opportunity to gain insight into their neurobiology. However, advances in understanding the genetic architecture of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have been based almost exclusively on subjects of Northern European ancestry. The Neuropsychiatric Genetics of African Populations-Psychosis (NeuroGAP-Psychosis) project aims to expand our understanding of the causes of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder through large-scale sample collection and analyses in understudied African populations.Methods and analysisNeuroGAP-Psychosis is a case-control study of 34 000 participants recruited across multiple sites within Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda. Participants will include individuals who are at least 18 years old with a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (‘psychosis’) or those with no history of psychosis. Research assistants will collect phenotype data and saliva for DNA extraction. Data on mental disorders, history of physical health problems, substance use and history of past traumatic events will be collected from all participants.DNA extraction will take place in-country, with genotyping performed at the Broad Institute. The primary analyses will include identifying major groups of participants with similar ancestry using the computation-efficient programme single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) weights. This will be followed by a GWAS within and across ancestry groups.Ethics and disseminationAll participants will be assessed for capacity to consent using the University of California, San Diego Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent. Those demonstrating capacity to consent will be required to provide informed consent. Ethical clearances to conduct this study have been obtained from all participating sites. Findings from this study will be disseminated in publications and shared with controlled access public databases, such as the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes, dbGaP.

Historically, community engagement (CE) in research has been implemented in the fields of public health, education and agricultural development. In recent years, international discussions on the ethical and practical goals of CE have been extended to human genomic research and biobanking, particularly in the African context. While there is some consensus on the goals and value of CE generally, questions remain about the effectiveness of CE practices and how to evaluate this. Under the auspices of the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative (H3Africa), the H3Africa CE working group organized a workshop in Stellenbosch, South Africa in March 2016 to explore the extent to which communities should be involved in genomic research and biobanking and to examine various methods of evaluating the effectiveness of CE. In this paper, we present the key themes that emerged from the workshop and make a case for the development of a rigorous application, evaluation and learning around approaches for CE that promote a more systematic process of engaging relevant communities. We highlight the key ways in which CE should be embedded into genomic research and biobanking projects.

No abstract

Obtaining informed consent is a great challenge in global health research. There is a need for tools that can screen for and improve potential research participants’ understanding of the research study at the time of recruitment. Limited empirical research has been conducted in low and middle income countries, evaluating informed consent processes in genomics research. We sought to investigate the quality of informed consent obtained in a South African psychiatric genomics study. A Xhosa language version of the University of California, San Diego Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent Questionnaire (UBACC) was used to screen for capacity to consent and improve understanding through iterative learning in a sample of 528 Xhosa people with schizophrenia and 528 controls. We address two questions: firstly, whether research participants’ understanding of the research study improved through iterative learning; and secondly, what were predictors for better understanding of the research study at the initial screening? During screening 290 (55%) cases and 172 (33%) controls scored below the 14.5 cut-off for acceptable understanding of the research study elements, however after iterative learning only 38 (7%) cases and 13 (2.5%) controls continued to score below this cut-off. Significant variables associated with increased understanding of the consent included the psychiatric nurse recruiter conducting the consent screening, higher participant level of education, and being a control. The UBACC proved an effective tool to improve understanding of research study elements during consent, for both cases and controls. The tool holds utility for complex studies such as those involving genomics, where iterative learning can be used to make significant improvements in understanding of research study elements. The UBACC may be particularly important in groups with severe mental illness and lower education levels. Study recruiters play a significant role in managing the quality of the informed consent process.

BackgroundThe rise in genomic and biobanking research worldwide has led to the development of different informed consent models for use in such research. This study analyses consent documents used by investigators in the H3Africa (Human Heredity and Health in Africa) Consortium.MethodsA qualitative method for text analysis was used to analyse consent documents used in the collection of samples and data in H3Africa projects. Thematic domains included type of consent model, explanations of genetics/genomics, data sharing and feedback of test results.ResultsInformed consent documents for 13 of the 19 H3Africa projects were analysed. Seven projects used broad consent, five projects used tiered consent and one used specific consent. Genetics was mostly explained in terms of inherited characteristics, heredity and health, genes and disease causation, or disease susceptibility. Only one project made provisions for the feedback of individual genetic results.ConclusionH3Africa research makes use of three consent models—specific, tiered and broad consent. We outlined different strategies used by H3Africa investigators to explain concepts in genomics to potential research participants. To further ensure that the decision to participate in genomic research is informed and meaningful, we recommend that innovative approaches to the informed consent process be developed, preferably in consultation with research participants, research ethics committees and researchers in Africa.

BackgroundCommunity engagement within biomedical research is broadly defined as a collaborative relationship between a research team and a group of individuals targeted for research. A Community Advisory Board (CAB) is one mechanism of engaging the community. Within genomics research CABs may be particularly relevant due to the potential implications of research findings drawn from individual participants on the larger communities they represent. Within such research, CABs seek to meet instrumental goals such as protecting research participants and their community from research-related risks, as well as intrinsic goals such as promoting the respect of participants and their community. However, successful community engagement depends on the degree to which CABs legitimately represent and engage with communities targeted for research. Currently, there is little literature describing the use of CABs in genomics research taking place in developing countries, and even less in the field of genomics research relating to mental illness. The aim of this article is to describe and consider the contributions made by a researcher-driven, population-specific CAB in a genomics of schizophrenia research project taking place in South Africa, from the perspective of the research team.DiscussionFour broad discussion topics emerged during the CAB meetings namely: 1) informed consent procedures, 2) recruitment strategies, 3) patient illness beliefs and stigma experiences, and 4) specific ethical concerns relating to the project. The authors consider these discussions in terms of their contributions to instrumental and intrinsic goals of community engagement.SummaryThe CAB gave valuable input on the consent processes and materials, recruitment strategies and suggested ways of minimizing the potential for stigma and discrimination. All of these contributions were of an instrumental nature, and helped improve the way in which the research took place. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the CAB made a unique and important contribution relating to intrinsic functions such as promoting the respect and dignity of research participants and their community. This was particularly evident in ensuring sensitivity and respect of the community’s traditional beliefs about schizophrenia and its treatment, and in this way promoting a respectful relationship between the research team and the participants.

Background It is critically important to conduct research on stigmatized conditions, to include marginalized groups that experience stigma, and to develop interventions to reduce stigma. However, such research is ethically challenging. Though superficial reference is frequently made to these widely acknowledged challenges, few publications have focused on ethical issues in research on stigmatized groups or conditions. In fact, a brief literature review found only two such publications. Main text At a recent Science of Stigma Reduction workshop comprising 60 stigma researchers from the USA and low and middle-income countries, the need for more robust and critical discussion of the ethics of the research was highlighted. In this paper we describe, illustrate through cases, and critically examine key ethical challenges that are more likely to arise because a research study focuses on health-related stigma or involves stigmatized groups or conditions. We examine the ethics of this research from two perspectives. First, through the lens of overprotection, where we discuss how the perception of stigma can impede ethical research, disrespect research participants, and narrow the research questions. Second, through the lens of research risks, where we consider how research with stigmatized populations can unintentionally result in harms. Research-related harms to participants include potential breaches of confidentiality and the exacerbation of stigma. Potential harms also extend to third parties, including families and populations who may be affected by the dissemination of research results. Conclusions Research with stigmatized populations and on stigmatized conditions should not be impeded by unnecessary or inappropriate protective measures. Nevertheless, it may entail different and greater risks than other health research. Investigators and research ethics committees must be particularly attentive to these risks and how to manage them.