Rethinking benefit sharing in collaborative human genetic research from an Afrocommunitarian perspective.

This article draws on reflections about humanness, friendliness and partiality, in the writings of Afro-communitarians to develop principles for thinking critically about why benefit sharing, what may count as benefits within the context of human research in Africa and the limits of the obligation of benefit sharing. Suppose the thinking about humanness, friendliness, and partiality in Afro-communitarianism were the foundation of human genetic research in Africa, then, individuals who have contributed to research or borne its burden would benefit from its rewards. This is even more important if participants have pressing needs that researchers and/or research institutions can help ease. A failure to aid sample contributors and data providers in need when researchers and research institutions can-as well as an indifference to the serious needs of contributors-are failures to exhibit friendliness in the relevant ways. Finally, though providing benefits to contributors can be an important way of showing humanity to them, nonetheless, this obligation is not absolute and may be limited by the stronger obligation of shared experience-to advance science. Studies are still required to inquire how well these norms will work in practice and inform regulatory and legal frameworks.

A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid global growth of biobanking over the last few decades, and their potential for the advancement of health research, considerations specific to the sharing of benefits that accrue from biobanks have received little attention. Questions such as the types and range of benefits that can arise in biobanking, who should be entitled to those benefits, when they should be provided, by whom and in what form remain mostly unanswered. We conducted a scoping review to describe benefit sharing considerations and practices in biobanking in order to inform current and future policy and practice. METHODS: Drawing on the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a scoping review of the literature in three online databases (PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar). We extracted and charted data to capture general characteristics, definitions and examples of benefits and benefit sharing, justification for benefit sharing, challenges in benefit sharing, governance mechanisms as well as proposed benefit sharing mechanisms. RESULTS: 29 articles published between 1999 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The articles included 5 empirical and 24 non-empirical studies. Only 12 articles discussed benefit sharing as a stand-alone subject, while the remaining 17 integrated a discussion of benefits as one issue amongst others. Major benefit sharing challenges in biobanking were found to be those associated with uncertainties around the future use of samples and in resultant benefits. CONCLUSION: Most of the benefit sharing definitions and approaches currently in use for biobanking are similar to those used in health research. These approaches may not recognise the distinct features of biobanking, specifically relating to uncertainties associated with the sharing and re-use of samples. We therefore support approaches that allow decisions about benefit sharing to be made progressively once it is apparent who samples are to be shared with, the intended purpose and expected benefits. We also highlight gaps in key areas informing benefit sharing in biobanking and draw attention to the need for further empirical research.

Assessing the impact of a primary care electronic medical record system in three Kenyan rural health centers.

OBJECTIVE: Efficient, effective health care requires rapid availability of patient information. We designed, implemented, and assessed the impact of a primary care electronic medical record (EMR) in three rural Kenyan health centers. METHOD: Local clinicians identified data required for primary care and public health reporting. We designed paper encounter forms to capture these data in adult medicine, pediatric, and antenatal clinics. Encounter form data were hand-entered into a new primary care module in an existing EMR serving onsite clinics serving patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Before subsequent visits, Summary Reports were printed containing selected patient data with reminders for needed HIV care. We assessed effects on patient flow and provider work with time-motion studies before implementation and two years later, and we surveyed providers' satisfaction with the EMR. RESULTS: Between September 2008 and December 2011, 72 635 primary care patients were registered and 114 480 encounter forms were completed. During 2011, 32 193 unique patients visited primary care clinics, and encounter forms were completed for all visits. Of 1031 (3.2%) who were HIV-infected, 85% received HIV care. Patient clinic time increased from 37 to 81 min/visit after EMR implementation in one health center and 56 to 106 min/visit in the other. However, outpatient visits to both health centers increased by 85%. Three-quarters of increased time was spent waiting. Despite nearly doubling visits, there was no change in clinical officers' work patterns, but the nurses' and the clerks' patient care time decreased after EMR implementation. Providers were generally satisfied with the EMR but desired additional training. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a primary care EMR in three rural Kenyan health centers. Patient waiting time was dramatically lengthened while the nurses' and the clerks' patient care time decreased. Long-term use of EMRs in such settings will require changes in culture and workflow.