Decision-making and role preferences for receiving individual pharmacogenomic research results among participants at a Ugandan HIV research institute

Little is known about how people living with HIV should be engaged in the decision-making process for returning individual pharmacogenomic research results. This study explored the role people living with HIV want to play in making decisions about whether and how individual results of pharmacogenomic research should be presented to them. A convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted, comprising a survey of 221 research participants and five deliberative focus group discussions with 30 purposively selected research participants. Most participants (122, 55.2%) preferred the collaborative role, 67 (30.3%) preferred the active role and 32 (14.5%) preferred the passive role. Factors that significantly influenced preference for an active role compared with a collaborative role were marital status (OR: 0.282, p = 0.013), research experience (OR: 4.37, p = 0.028), and religion (OR: 2.346, p = 0.041). The reasons proffered for the active role included prior experience with antiretroviral treatment and increased exposure to research activities. The reasons given for preferring the passive role included limited level of awareness about the interaction between patients' genes and drugs, trust in researchers to make the right decision, and fear of making decisions with harmful implications. Overall, findings from our study show that participants want to be engaged in the decision-making process. Research teams ought to provide adequate and simple information about the pharmacogenomic research and implications of the results to support participants' informed decisions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Ethics
Published
2025-02-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01181-w
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.88

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Decision-making and role preferences for receiving individual pharmacogenomic research results among participants at a Ugandan HIV research institute

Sylvia Nabukenya, David Kyaddondo, Adelline Twimukye, Richard Muhindo et al.
1 citations
BMC Medical Ethics
Ethics in Clinical Research
1.88
article

Decision-making and role preferences for receiving individual pharmacogenomic research results among participants at a Ugandan HIV research institute

Sylvia Nabukenya, David Kyaddondo, Adelline Twimukye, Richard Muhindo, Stella Zawedde‐Muyanja, Erisa Mwaka, Barbara Castelnuovo, Catriona John Waitt, Brian Mushabe
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Little is known about how people living with HIV should be engaged in the decision-making process for returning individual pharmacogenomic research results. This study explored the role people living with HIV want to play in making decisions about whether and how individual results of pharmacogenomic research should be presented to them. A convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted, comprising a survey of 221 research participants and five deliberative focus group discussions with 30 purposively selected research participants. Most participants (122, 55.2%) preferred the collaborative role, 67 (30.3%) preferred the active role and 32 (14.5%) preferred the passive role. Factors that significantly influenced preference for an active role compared with a collaborative role were marital status (OR: 0.282, p = 0.013), research experience (OR: 4.37, p = 0.028), and religion (OR: 2.346, p = 0.041). The reasons proffered for the active role included prior experience with antiretroviral treatment and increased exposure to research activities. The reasons given for preferring the passive role included limited level of awareness about the interaction between patients' genes and drugs, trust in researchers to make the right decision, and fear of making decisions with harmful implications. Overall, findings from our study show that participants want to be engaged in the decision-making process. Research teams ought to provide adequate and simple information about the pharmacogenomic research and implications of the results to support participants' informed decisions.

BMC Medical EthicsVol. 26(1)
University of Liverpool (GB), Infectious Diseases Institute (UG), Makerere University (UG)
Johns Hopkins University, National Institutes of Health
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Ethics in Clinical Research
1.88
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.