Participants' refusal to take part in research is an unpleasant experience that investigators face.. This paper highlights some of the reasons why people from resource-poor settings refuse to take part in health research. This paper also highlights standards which investigators can adopt to avoid unnecessary refusals and at the same time ensure that individuals have the right to participate and freedom to refuse. Our objective was to explore reasons why people refuse to join research studies. We conducted focus group discussions with people who had refused to take part in a number of biomedical research studies but agreed to be interviewed in this study. The study was undertaken in the peri-urban and urban areas of Blantyre district; Bangwe, Mpemba and Madziabango. We found nine key factors that influence people to refuse to participate in biomedical research. The factors are failure to follow traditional customs , lack of study benefits, superstition, poor informed consent procedures, ignorance of health research, fear of strangers, lack of cultural sensitivity, poor timing, and previous bad research experience. People refuse to participate in health research for a number of reasons which can be overcome if researchers embark on community engagement before implementing their studies.

BackgroundThe rise in genomic and biobanking research worldwide has led to the development of different informed consent models for use in such research. This study analyses consent documents used by investigators in the H3Africa (Human Heredity and Health in Africa) Consortium.MethodsA qualitative method for text analysis was used to analyse consent documents used in the collection of samples and data in H3Africa projects. Thematic domains included type of consent model, explanations of genetics/genomics, data sharing and feedback of test results.ResultsInformed consent documents for 13 of the 19 H3Africa projects were analysed. Seven projects used broad consent, five projects used tiered consent and one used specific consent. Genetics was mostly explained in terms of inherited characteristics, heredity and health, genes and disease causation, or disease susceptibility. Only one project made provisions for the feedback of individual genetic results.ConclusionH3Africa research makes use of three consent models—specific, tiered and broad consent. We outlined different strategies used by H3Africa investigators to explain concepts in genomics to potential research participants. To further ensure that the decision to participate in genomic research is informed and meaningful, we recommend that innovative approaches to the informed consent process be developed, preferably in consultation with research participants, research ethics committees and researchers in Africa.

Current literature suggests that therapeutic misconception-a belief by participants in a clinical trial that they are in fact simply being given clinical care-is common, especially among illiterate populations in developing countries. Therapeutic misconception reflects problems in informed consent, as people agree to participate in clinical trials without being aware that the trial procedures and test products may not in fact benefit them. In this study of Malawian adults who had participated in research projects of various kinds during the preceding years, we found that the majority participated in research for the sake of obtaining better quality treatment made available through the clinical trials as ancillary care. Their consent to participate was not due to a belief that the actual procedures of the trial would directly benefit their health. Respondents indicated that, government hospitals being crowded and commonly lacking drugs, they agreed to take part in research projects in the hope of obtaining access to ancillary care provided by clinical trials. We conclude that in this environment, possibly owing to inadequacy of routine health services, people make rational decisions to participate in research. We question whether the term 'therapeutic misconception' accurately describes participants' motivation under conditions of limited resources. We also discuss the relevance of these findings for understanding undue inducement in clinical trials.

BackgroundThe intervention reported in this paper was a follow up to an empirical study conducted in Malawi with the aim of assessing trial participants’ understanding of randomisation, double-blinding and placebo use. In the empirical study, the majority of respondents (61.1%; n=124) obtained low scores (lower than 75%) on understanding of all three concepts under study. Based on these findings, an intervention based on a narrative which included all three concepts and their personal implications was designed. The narrative used daily examples from the field of Agriculture because Malawi has an agro-based economy.MethodsThe intervention was tested using a sample of 36 women who had been identified as low scorers during the empirical study. The 36 low scorers were randomly assigned to control (n=18) and intervention arms (n=18). The control arm went through a session in which they were provided with standard informed consent information for the microbicide trial. The intervention arm went through a session in which they were provided with a narrative in ChiChewa, the local language, with the assistance of a power point presentation which included pictures as well as discussions on justification and personal implications of the concepts under study.ResultsThe findings on the efficacy of the intervention suggest that the 3 scientific concepts and their personal implications can be understood by low literacy populations using simple language and everyday local examples. The findings also suggest that the intervention positively impacted on understanding of trial procedures under study, as 13 of the 18 women in the intervention arm, obtained high scores (above 75%) during the post intervention assessment and none of the 18 in the control arm obtained a high score. Using Fischer’s exact test, it was confirmed that the effect of the intervention on understanding of the three procedures was statistically significant (p=0.0001).ConclusionsPotential trial participants can be assisted to understand key clinical trial procedures, their justification and personal implications by using innovative tailored local narratives.

It is recommended that rehabilitation interventions are planned and evaluated with consideration to their impact on Exclusion, Indignity, Pain, Hunger and Household Poverty using multi-faceted partnerships.