↓ Skip to main content

“The keeping is the problem”: A qualitative study of IRB-member perspectives in Botswana on the collection, use, and storage of human biological samples for research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
“The keeping is the problem”: A qualitative study of IRB-member perspectives in Botswana on the collection, use, and storage of human biological samples for research
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0047-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francis Barchi, Keikantse Matlhagela, Nicola Jones, Poloko M. Kebaabetswe, Jon F. Merz

Abstract

Concurrent with efforts to establish national and regional biorepositories in Africa is widespread endorsement of ethics committees as stewards of the interests of individual donors and their communities. To date, ethics training programs for IRB members in Botswana have focused on ethical principles and international guidelines rather than on the ethical dimensions of specific medical technologies and research methodologies. Little is known about the knowledge and concerns of current and prospective IRB members in Botswana with respect to export, reuse, storage, and benefit-sharing of biospecimens. This qualitative study examined perspectives of IRB members in Botswana about the collection and use of biospecimens in research. Forty-one IRB members representing five committees in Botswana participated in discussions groups in March 2013. Transcriptions of audiotapes and field notes were analyzed to identify issues of concern that might be alleviated through education and capacity-building, and areas that required ongoing discussion or additional regulatory guidance. Areas of concern included lack of understanding among patients and providers about the use of biospecimens in clinical care and research; reuse of biospecimens, particularly issues of consent, ownership and decision-making; export of specimens and loss of control over reuse and potential benefits; and felt need for regulatory guidance and IRB-member training. Local belief systems about bodily integrity and strong national identity in the construct of benefits may be at odds with initiatives that involve foreign biorepositories or consider such collections to be global public goods. Education is needed to strengthen IRB-member capacity to review and monitor protocols calling for the collection and use of biospecimens, guided by clear national policy on priority-setting, partnerships, review, and oversight. Engagement with local stakeholders is needed to harmonize fundamentally different ways of understanding the human body and community identity with the aims of contemporary biomedicine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Other 6 8%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 20%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Psychology 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,622,789
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#624
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,467
of 268,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.