"It's for a good cause, isn't it?" - Exploring views of South African TB research participants on sample storage and re-use

Abstract

BackgroundThe banking of biological samples raises a number of ethical issues in relation to the storage, export and re-use of samples. Whilst there is a growing body of literature exploring participant perspectives in North America and Europe, hardly any studies have been reported in Africa. This is problematic in particular in light of the growing amount of research taking place in Africa, and with the rise of biobanking practices also on the African continent. In order to investigate the perspectives of African research participants, we conducted a study with research participants in a TB study in the Western Cape, South Africa.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted using an interview guide which drew on the most prominent themes expressed in current literature on sample storage, re-use and exportation. Interviews were conducted in Afrikaans and subsequently translated into English by the same interviewer. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed qualitatively.ResultsThe results of our study indicate that the majority of participants were supportive of giving one-time consent to the storage and re-use of their samples. The concept of research being for a “good cause” was a central prerequisite. Additionally, a significant minority requested that they be re-contacted if a future use was not stipulated on the original consent. There was also considerable variation in how participants understood the concept of a ‘good cause’, with participants describing three distinct categories of research, of which two were generally thought to constitute ‘good cause’ research. Research that was for-profit was considered to fall outside the spectrum of ‘good cause’ research. Participants displayed confidence in the abilities of the researchers to make future decisions regarding sample use, but seemed unaware of the role of ethics committees in either this process or more generally.ConclusionsParticipants expressed a wide and complex range of views about issues of sample storage and re-use, and they showed a great deal of trust in researchers. Participants’ willingness to have their samples stored and re-used is consistent with findings from existing studies. However, in contrast to existing literature, participants were generally not in favour of for-profit research. Further research needs to be done to explore these ideas in other communities, both in South Africa and other countries.

Cancer Patient Perceptions about Biobanking and Preferred Timing of Consent

“…10 Similar to this study, other researchers have found that altruism (wanting to help others), detachment from the tissue (''it's out anyway''), and seeing research as ''a good cause'' were reasons given for agreeing to donate. 10,15 Patients perceive the physician as a key messenger, and this is not surprising. A growing body of literature points to the significance of the ''physician ask'' in enrolling patients in clinical trials and other research endeavors.…”

Demographic Differences in Willingness to Provide Broad and Narrow Consent for Biobank Research

“…16 However, few studies have explored if there are racial and ethnic, or other demographic differences in acceptance of a given consent model. 17 Acceptance of informed consent models for biobank research has received significant international attention, [18][19][20][21] but limited focus in the US. Additionally, the results of studies on the public's acceptance of the various consent models used and proposed for biobank research has been conflicting and variably received.…”

Genomic and environmental risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases in Africa: methods used for Phase 1 of the AWI-Gen population cross-sectional study

“…They found evidence to support earlier work that indicated that this could be justified provided that researchers were trustworthy, the research was accompanied by community engagement, and that appropriate governance structures were in place [78]. They also identified a concern that revisiting participants for reconsent for each new study was impractical.…”