Understanding cultural values, norms and beliefs that may impact participation in genome-editing related research: Perspectives of local communities in Botswana.

Gene-editing research is a complex science and foreign in most communities including Botswana. Adopting a qualitative deliberative framework with 109 participants from 7 selected ethnic communities in Botswana, we explored the perceptions of local communities on cultural values, norms, and beliefs that may motivate or deter likely participation in the use of gene-editing related research. What emerged as the ethnic community's motivators for research participation include the potential for gene-editing technologies to promote access to individualized medications, and the possibility of protecting family members from genetic related diseases. Deterrents for research participation include cultural values such as implications of lineage for chieftainship, trust, fear or anxiety, uncertainty, and sensitivity on the use of gene-editing. Findings of our study have implications for continuous engagement with local communities to explore potential ways of addressing cultural sensitivities that can further deter their participation in future gene-editing related research.

Feeding back of individual genetic results in Botswana: mapping opportunities and challenges.

PURPOSE: We explored the views of Botswana stakeholders involved in developing, implementing and applying ethical standards for return of individual study results from genomic research. This allowed for mapping opportunities and challenges regarding actionability requirements that determine whether individual genomic research results should be fed back. METHODS: Using in-depth interviews, this study explored the views of sixteen (16) stakeholders about the extent, nature and timing of feedback of individual genomic research findings, including incidental findings that arise in the context of African genomics research. Coded data was analyzed through an iterative process of analytic induction to document and interpret themes. RESULTS: Overall, respondents were of the view that feedback of actionable individual genomic results was an important outcome that could benefit participants. However, a number of themes surfaced that pointed to opportunities and challenges that exist in Botswana that could help in planning for feeding back of individual genomic results that were mapped. Some of the opportunities cited by the respondents included the existence of good governance; democracy and humanitarianism; universal healthcare system; national commitment to science; research and innovation to transform Botswana into a knowledge-based economy; and applicable standard of care which could promote actionability. On the other hand, contextual issues like the requirement for validation of genomic research results in accredited laboratories, high cost of validation of genomic results, and linkage to care, as well as lack of experts like genomic scientists and counselors were considered as challenges for return of individual results. CONCLUSION: We propose that decisions whether and which genomic results to return take into consideration contextual opportunities and challenges for actionability for return of results in a research setting. This is likely to avoid or minimize ethical issues of justice, equity and harm regarding actionability decisions.

Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research?

BACKGROUND: A key ethical question in genomics research relates to whether individual genetic research results should be disclosed to research participants and if so, which results are to be disclosed, by whom and when. Whilst this issue has received only scarce attention in African bioethics discourse, the extension of genomics research to the African continent has brought it into sharp focus. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we examined the views of adolescents, parents and caregivers participating in a paediatric and adolescent HIV-TB genomic study in Botswana on how solidarity and reciprocity obligations could guide decisions about feedback of individual genetic research results. Data were collected using deliberative focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. RESULTS: Findings from 93 participants (44 adolescents and 49 parents and caregivers) demonstrated the importance of considering solidarity and reciprocity obligations in decisions about the return of individual genetic research results to participants. Participants viewed research participation as a mutual relationship and expressed that return of research results would be one way in which research participation could be reciprocated. They noted that when reciprocity obligations are respected, participants feel valued and not respecting reciprocity expectations could undermine participant trust and participation in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that expectations of solidarity and reciprocity could translate into an obligation to feedback selected individual genetic research results in African genomics research.

Mapping research ethics committees in Africa: Evidence of the growth of ethics review of health research in Africa.

Health research initiatives worldwide are growing in scope and complexity, particularly as they move into the developing world. Expanding health research activity in low- and middle-income countries has resulted in a commensurate rise in the need for sound ethical review structures and functions in the form of Research Ethics Committees (RECs). The urgent need for continued capacity development in Africa has necessitated research initiatives to identify existing capacity. This discussion paper describes the mapping of RECs in Africa through MARC (Mapping African Research Ethics Capacity) project, second phase (2012 to date) and discusses the findings. MARC provides a platform and tool on COHRED's Health Research HRWeb, which can be used by RECs and key stakeholders in health research in Africa to identify capacity, constraints and development needs.

Building research capacity in Botswana: a randomized trial comparing training methodologies in the Botswana ethics training initiative.

BACKGROUND: Little empirical data are available on the extent to which capacity-building programs in research ethics prepare trainees to apply ethical reasoning skills to the design, conduct, or review of research. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in Botswana in 2010 to assess the effectiveness of a case-based intervention using email to augment in-person seminars. METHODS: University faculty and current and prospective IRB/REC members took part in a semester-long training program in research ethics. Participants attended two 2-day seminars and were assigned at random to one of two on-line arms of the trial. Participants in both arms completed on-line international modules from the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. Between seminars, intervention-arm participants were also emailed a weekly case to analyze in response to set questions; responses and individualized faculty feedback were exchanged via email. Tests assessing ethics knowledge were administered at the start of each seminar. The post-test included an additional section in which participants were asked to identify the ethical issues highlighted in five case studies from a list of multiple-choice responses. Results were analyzed using regression and ANOVA. RESULTS: Of the 71 participants (36 control, 35 intervention) enrolled at the first seminar, 41 (57.7%) attended the second seminar (19 control, 22 intervention). In the intervention arm, 19 (54.3%) participants fully completed and 8 (22.9%) partially completed all six weekly cases. The mean score was higher on the post-test (30.3/40) than on the pre-test (28.0/40), and individual post- and pre-test scores were highly correlated (r = 0.65, p < 0.0001). Group assignment alone did not have an effect on test scores (p > 0.84), but intervention-arm subjects who completed all assigned cases answered an average of 3.2 more questions correctly on the post-test than others, controlling for pre-test scores (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Completion of the case-based intervention improved respondents' test scores, with those who completed all six email cases scoring roughly 10% better than those who failed to complete this task and those in the control arm. There was only suggestive evidence that intensive case work improved ethical issue identification, although there was limited ability to assess this outcome due to a high drop-out rate.

Participant views on practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic research results: a case study from Botswana.

Key to discussions around feedback of individual results from genomics research are practical questions on how such results should be fed back, by who and when. However, there has been virtually no work investigating these practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic results in the context of low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially in Africa. Consequently, we conducted deliberative focus group discussions with 6 groups of adolescents (n = 44) who previously participated in a genomics study in Botswana as well as 6 groups of parents and caregivers (n = 49) of children who participated in the same study. We also conducted in-depth interviews with 6 adolescents and 6 parents or caregivers. Our findings revealed that both adolescents and parents would prefer to receive their individual genetic results in person, with adolescents preferring researchers to provide feedback, while parents preferred doctors who are associated with the study. Both adolescents and parents further expressed that feedback should be supported by counselling but differed on the timing of feedback, with preferences ranging from feedback as quickly as possible to feedback at project end. In conclusion, decisions on practicalities for feedback of results should be done in account of participants' context and considerations of participants' preferences.

Considerations of Autonomy in Guiding Decisions around the Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results from Genomics Research: Expectations of and Preferences from Researchers in Botswana.

Background: The Human Health and Heredity (H3Africa) Consortium continues to generate large amounts of genomic data leading to new insights into health and disease among African populations. This has however generated debate among stakeholders involved in developing, implementing, and applying ethical standards and policies for the return of individual genetic research results. The key questions are about when results must, should, may, or must not be returned and by whom. This study aimed to explore the views on the feedback of individual pertinent and incidental genetic research results of researchers, ethics committee members, and policymakers in Botswana. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 key stakeholders from academic, research institutions, and regulatory bodies in Botswana. An analysis of the coded data was done through an iterative process of analytic induction to document and interpret themes and patterns. Results: Overall, the study indicated that researchers have at least a partial obligation to return individual genetic research results to research participants. Respondents placed emphasis on the ethical principle of autonomy. They felt that it was inappropriate for researchers to make decisions about the return of results on participants' behalf except in situations of avoiding participant self-harm or harm to society. Conclusion: Findings helped to highlight the importance of considering participants' autonomy in the development of sustainable and credible guidelines for feedback of findings from genomics research in Botswana, which can be explained during community engagement and consent processes. Such guidelines would ultimately be used to develop policies, guide African genomics research, and promote participant autonomy, transparency, and possibly participant trust in research.

Should Feedback of Individual Results be Integrated into the Consent Process in African Genomics? Participants' Views from an HIV-TB Genomics Research Project in Botswana.

BackgroundWhilst informed consent is a key component of considering whether individual genomic research results could or should be fed back to research participants, little is known about the views of African research participants on its role.MethodsWe carried out a qualitative study to explore views of adolescents and parents or caregivers regarding informed consent for feedback of individual results from a genomics research project in Botswana. We conducted 24 deliberative focus group discussions with 93 participants (44 adolescents and 49 parents or caregivers) and 12 in-depth interviews (6 adolescents and 6 parents).ResultsOur findings revealed that most participants would like to be informed about the possibility of discovering individual genetic results during the consent process and that consent be obtained for feedback during the enrollment process. They further expressed that in cases where prior consent to feedback was not obtained, then participants should be re-contacted where life-saving genetic information is discovered. Participants emphasized the need for researchers to ensure that participants' decisions regarding feedback of results are well-informed. Autonomy, transparency, and communication were identified as key values to uphold during the consent process.ConclusionIn conclusion, obtaining participants' consent for feedback of results is important to ensure that their rights and wellbeing are protected in research. This is critical in building trust relationships between participants and researchers.

Participants' Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana.

The feedback of individual results of genomics research is an ethical issue. However, which genetic results African participants would like to receive and why, remains unclear. A qualitative study was conducted to collect data from 44 adolescents and 49 parents/caregivers of adolescents enrolled in a genomic study in Botswana. Almost all the participants wanted to receive genetic results. Parents and caregivers wanted to receive results across all categories of genetic conditions discussed in the study, while adolescents were reluctant to receive results for severe, non-preventable, and unactionable conditions. Participants expressed different reasons for wanting feedback of results, including for awareness, improving lifestyle, accepting one' situation, and preparing for the future. Our findings also reveal that participants' context, relations, and empowerment are important to consider in interpreting their preferences for feedback of results.

Ending the evidence gap for pregnancy, HIV and co-infections: ethics guidance from the PHASES project.

INTRODUCTION: While pregnant people have been an important focus for HIV research, critical evidence gaps remain regarding prevention, co-infection, and safety and efficacy of new antiretroviral therapies in pregnancy. Such gaps can result in harm: without safety data, drugs used may carry unacceptable risks to the foetus or pregnant person; without pregnancy-specific dosing data, pregnant people face risks of both toxicity and undertreatment; and delays in gathering evidence can limit access to beneficial next-generation drugs. Despite recognition of the need, numerous barriers and ethical complexities have limited progress. We describe the process, ethical foundations, recommendations and applications of guidance for advancing responsible inclusion of pregnant people in HIV/co-infections research. DISCUSSION: The 26-member international and interdisciplinary Pregnancy and HIV/AIDS: Seeking Equitable Study (PHASES) Working Group was convened to develop ethics-centred guidance for advancing timely, responsible HIV/co-infections research with pregnant people. Deliberations over 3 years drew on extensive qualitative research, stakeholder engagement, expert consultation and a series of workshops. The guidance, initially issued in July 2020, highlights conceptual shifts needed in framing research with pregnant people, and articulates three ethical foundations to ground recommendations: equitable protection from drug-related risks, timely access to biomedical advances and equitable respect for pregnant people's health interests. The guidance advances 12 specific recommendations, actionable within the current regulatory environment, addressing multiple stakeholders across drug development and post-approval research, and organized around four themes: building capacity, supporting inclusion, achieving priority research and ensuring respect. The recommendations describe strategies towards ethically redressing the evidence gap for pregnant people around HIV and co-infections. The guidance has informed key efforts of leading organizations working to advance needed research, and identifies further opportunities for impact by a range of stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are clear pathways towards ethical inclusion of pregnant people in the biomedical research agenda, and strong agreement across the HIV research community about the need for - and the promise of - advancing them. Those who fund, conduct, oversee and advocate for research can use the PHASES guidance to facilitate more, better and earlier evidence to optimize the health and wellbeing of pregnant people and their children.

The features and qualities of online training modules in research ethics: a case study evaluating their institutional application for the University of Botswana.

Research ethics remains a cornerstone of the scientific enterprise as it defines the boundaries of responsible conduct of research. Our aim was to systematically identify, review and test online training courses in research ethics which could be considered most appropriate for future training at the University of Botswana (UB). We used an evaluative tool that included both descriptive and evaluative criteria for assessing the strengths, weaknesses and appropriateness of 10 online research ethics courses which are publicly accessible. We then assembled Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to engage the UB community to select the best 2-3 online courses that are considered most suited for use in future training of research ethics at UB. Twenty respondents participated in three FGDs. Our findings show that there is limited research ethics training capacity in low resourced academic institutions like UB. Online training opportunities could be used to address this challenge. Our analysis reveal that out of the 10 online courses reviewed, CITI program, Family Health International, and Training and Resource in Research Ethics Evaluation have characteristics that would make them suitable for utilization in Botswana. We believe the findings from this case study will be of value to other similarly situated research institutions.