Search

Purpose: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited blood disorder characterized by unpredictable episodes of acute pain and numerous health complications. Individuals with SCD often face stigma from the public, including perceptions that they are lazy or weak tending to exaggerate their pain crisis, which can profoundly impact their quality of life (QoL). Methods: In a qualitative phenomenological study conducted in Cameroon, Ghana, and Tanzania, we explored stakeholders' perceptions of SCD-related stigma using three analytical frameworks: Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory; The Health Stigma and Discriminatory Framework; and A Public Health Framework for Reducing Stigma. Results: The study reveals that SCD-related stigma is marked by prejudice, negative labelling and social discrimination, with derogatory terms such as sickler, ogbanje (one who comes and goes), sika besa (money will finish), ene mewu (I can die today, I can die tomorrow), vampire (one who consumes human blood), and Efiewura (landlord-of the hospital), commonly used to refer to individuals living with SCD. Drivers of stigma include frequent crises and hospitalizations, distinct physical features of individuals living with SCD, cultural misconceptions about SCD and its association with early mortality. Proposed strategies for mitigating stigma include public health education campaigns about SCD, integrating SCD into school curricula, healthcare worker training and community engagement. Conclusion: The results highlight the importance of challenging stigmatizing narratives on SCD and recognizing that stigmatization represents a social injustice that significantly diminishes the QoL of individuals living with SCD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The post‐genomics era promises a revolution characterized by precision medicine and the integration of genomics into almost every area of biomedical research. At the same time, there are concerns that if care is not taken, the genomics revolution may widen global inequities in science and health. In Africa, these concerns are primarily linked to the underrepresentation of African populations in genomics research, limited genomics research capacity in Africa and associated macro‐level justice issues such as benefit sharing, inequitable international research collaborations, and the contribution of genomics to the health and research priorities of Africa. Addressing these concerns requires an in‐depth reflection on how the ideals of global justice and equity may be advanced in genomics research. To contribute to the limited but growing scholarship on global genomics equity, especially in the African context, we performed a conceptual analysis of three accounts of justice and governance namely, Ubuntu, shared health governance and global governance of health, with the aim of identifying principles that could inform genomics governance in Africa. We used a convergence approach in the conceptual analysis, resulting in the identification of nine principles namely: solidarity, furthering the ideals of health justice, reciprocity, shared decision‐making, shared resources, shared responsibility, mutual trust, transparency, and mutual collective accountability. Examples of how the principles may be applied are provided. We recommend that these principles should form the foundation of any mechanism that seeks to systematically advance justice, fairness and equity in genomics research in Africa and more broadly, global health and science equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns around comprehension and recall of consent information by research participants have typically been associated with low health and research literacy levels. In genomics research, this concern is heightened as the scientific and ethical complexities of genetics research, such as biobanking, genetic susceptibility, data sharing, and incidental findings may be more difficult for potential research participants to understand. However, challenges to research participants' comprehension of consent information may be compounded by factors beyond health and research literacy levels. To identify factors that may impact research participants' understanding and recall of consent information, we designed a qualitative study to explore whether participants enrolled in a tuberculosis genetics study (TBGEN-Africa) in Cameroon understood the objectives of the study, the risks and benefits and certain key aspects of the study such as biobanking and data sharing. The results showed that research participants had limited understanding and/or recall of the TBGEN-Africa study goals and methods. Some participants were of the opinion that TBGEN-Africa was not a genetics study because tuberculosis is not an inheritable condition. Factors that may have hindered understanding and/or recall of study information are diagnostic misconception (research participants consider research as part of medical diagnosis), and information overload and situational vulnerability (consent at a time of physical and emotional distress). There is a need for improved practices to support research participants' understanding of consent information in genetics studies including designing the consent process in ways that minimize psychological distress and diagnostic/therapeutic misconception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]