Demographic characteristics of study participants
A total of 153 participants consented to the study procedures and participated in the study. By gender, majority of the participants were males 89(58%), and 64(42%) were females. The age of the participants ranges from 20 to 60 years, and those aged 36 and above were in abundance, 72(47.1%), followed by those between 26 and 35 years with 58(37.1%) and the least number of participants were those below the age of 25 years with 23(15.0%). By occupation, majority of the participants hold academic positions in tertiary institutions (60.8%), followed by students representing one-third of the population (30.1%) and the least were clinicians (1.3%) (Table 1).
The participants who were drawn from thirty-three (33) academic institutions across Nigeria responded to the questionnaire. The research scope of the participants ranged from basic science to molecular biology.
Table 1: Demographic information of study participants
|
Number of respondents
|
Percentage
|
Gender
|
|
|
Female
|
64
|
41.8
|
Male
|
89
|
58.2
|
Total
|
153
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
Age (in years)
|
|
|
18-25
|
23
|
15.0
|
26-35
|
58
|
37.9
|
≥36
|
72
|
47.1
|
Total
|
153
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
Occupation
|
|
|
Academia/Lecturer
|
93
|
60.8
|
Clinician
|
2
|
1.3
|
Government worker
|
12
|
7.8
|
Students
|
46
|
30.1
|
Total
|
153
|
100.0
|
Participants’ awareness and knowledge about bioethics
Majority of the participants, 140(91.5%) have heard of bioethics. The clinicians have heard of bioethics prior the workshop 2(100%), and 44(96%)of the students who participated were aware of bioethics, followed by participants, 86(93%) who hold academic positions in tertiary institutions. There were significant differences in the proportions of participants who are aware of bioethics prior to the workshop across the occupational status (p <0.05). Majority of the participants 94(61.4%) affirmed they learnt about bioethics while in schools, this was more common for the students 34(74%), followed by civil servants 7(58.3%) and those in academics 53(57%). An appreciable number of participants 19(12.4%) also affirmed that they learnt about bioethics on institutional review boards. The civil servants affirmed this in high proportions 4(33.3%) compared to those in academia 15(16.1%). The internet and advert of the event also contributed to awareness creation for 17(11.1%) and 10(6.5%) of the participants respectively. However, only 2.0% of the participants affirmed they learnt about bioethics on a radio program. There were significant differences in the proportions of where participants learnt about bioethics across the occupational status (p <0.05). Majority of the participants 118(77.1%) ascribed the description of bioethics to social and legal issues arising from medicine and the life sciences, this was followed by 25(16.3%) who described it as human understanding of well-being and about 10(6.5%) felt it is a critic reflection about ethical conflicts. There were no significant differences in the proportions of participants across the descriptions of bioethics and their occupational status (p >0.05) (Table 2).
Table 2: Participants’ awareness and knowledge about bioethics
|
Occupation of study participants
|
X2, df, p-value
|
|
Clinician
|
Academia
|
Civil servant
|
Student/
unemployed
|
Total
|
|
Have you heard about bioethics before this event?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
2(100)
|
86(92.5)
|
8(66.7)
|
44(95.7)
|
140(91.5)
|
10.828, 3, 0.013
|
No
|
0(0)
|
7(7.5)
|
4(33.3)
|
2(4.3)
|
13(8.5)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
Where did you first learn about bioethics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institutional review boards
|
0(0)
|
15(16.1)
|
4(33.3)
|
0(0)
|
19(12.4)
|
76.889, 18, 0.000
|
Internet
|
0(0)
|
10(10.8)
|
1(8.3)
|
6(13.0)
|
17(11.1)
|
|
National ethics board
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
4(8.7)
|
4(2.6)
|
|
Schools
|
0(0)
|
53(57)
|
7(58.3)
|
34(73.9)
|
94(61.4)
|
|
Radio program
|
0(0)
|
3(3.2)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
3(2.0)
|
|
Hospital/clinics
|
2(100)
|
4(4.3)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
6(3.9)
|
|
Event advert
|
0(0)
|
8(8.6)
|
0(0)
|
2(4.4)
|
10(6.5)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
Which of the following best describes bioethics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Critic reflection about ethical conflicts
|
0
|
3(3.2)
|
1(8.3)
|
6(13.0)
|
10(6.5)
|
9.526, 9, 0.390
|
Human understanding of well-being
|
0
|
16(17.2)
|
4(33.3)
|
5(10.9)
|
25(16.3)
|
|
Social and Legal issues arising from medicine and the life sciences
|
2(100)
|
74(79.6)
|
7(58.3)
|
35(76.1)
|
118(77.1)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Participants’ perception about bioethics and ethical approvals
Majority of the participants 140(91.5%) perceived it is necessary to obtain ethical approvals before the study, with the highest proportion of responses recorded among clinicians 2(100%), followed by those holding academic positions 88(94.6%), students 41 (89.1%) and civil servants 9(75%). About 25% of the participants that were civil servants felt they could still obtain ethical permits during the study process, and some students 2(4.4%) and academic staff 2(2.2%) felt they can obtain a permit after the study. There were no significant differences in the proportions of participants across the time when approvals should be sought and their occupational status (p > 0.05) (Table 3).
Furthermore, the perception of participants varied regarding the bioethics principles to be considered while planning for research. Majority of the participant 128(83.6%) affirmed that issues surrounding the need, respect, risk and benefits of the research should be considered. Clinicians and civil servants affirmed totally to this, with 2(100%) and 12(100%) respectively. However, some academic staff, 12(12.9%) and students, 6(13%) felt on the risk and benefits of the study to the participants should be considered. Also, 2(2.2%) of the academic staff felt none of these principles should be considered. There were significant differences in the proportions of participants across their perceptions about bioethics principles and their occupational status (p < 0.05) (Table 3).
The perceptions of participants varied around the type of research that requires ethical approvals. Majority of the participants felt only clinical research 47(30.7%) and Animal experimental research 46(30.1%) should apply for ethical approvals. This was followed by research involving collection of human bio-samples, 37(24.3%) and the least was behavioural studies with 2(1.3%). Only 21(13.7%) affirmed that all these types of studies needs ethical approval, with responses from those holding academic positions 19(12.4%), civil servants 1(8.3%) and students 1(2.2%). There were no significant differences in the proportions of participants across their perceptions about the type of study that requires ethical permits and their occupational status (p < 0.05). Majority of the respondents, 144(94.1%) agreed that a manuscript can be rejected if the underlying study has no ethical approval. However, some academic staff 7(7.5%) and students 9(5.9%) felt such manuscripts can still be accepted. There were no significant differences in the proportions of participants across their occupational status (p < 0.05) (Table 3).
Table 3: Participants’ perception about bioethics and ethical approvals
|
Occupation of study participants
|
|
|
Clinician
|
Academia
|
Civil servant
|
Student/
unemployed
|
Total
|
X2, df, p-value
|
When do you think it is necessary to obtain ethical clearance for your study?
|
|
|
|
|
Before
|
2(100)
|
88(94.6)
|
9(75)
|
41(89.1)
|
140(91.5)
|
10.193, 6, 0.117
|
After
|
0(0)
|
2(2.2)
|
0(0)
|
2(4.4)
|
4(2.6)
|
|
During
|
0(0)
|
3(3.2)
|
3(25)
|
3(6.5)
|
9(5.9)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
Which of the following bioethics principle should be considered while planning for research?
|
|
|
|
|
Justification to participants
|
0(0)
|
3(3.2)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
3(2.0)
|
76.889, 18, 0.000
|
Respect for participants
|
0(0)
|
2(2.2)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
2(1.3)
|
|
Risk and benefits to the participants
|
0(0)
|
12(12.9)
|
0(0)
|
6(13)
|
18(11.8)
|
|
All of the above
|
2(100)
|
74(79.5)
|
12(100)
|
40(87)
|
128(83.6)
|
|
None of the above
|
0(0)
|
2(2.2)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
2(1.3)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
Which type of research do you need ethical clearance?
|
|
|
|
|
Animal experimental research
|
2(100)
|
26(27.9)
|
6(50)
|
12(26.1)
|
46(30.1)
|
25.115, 12, 0.14
|
Behavioral studies
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
1(8.3)
|
1(2.2)
|
2(1.3)
|
|
Clinical research
|
0(0)
|
24(25.8)
|
3(25)
|
20(43.4)
|
47(30.7)
|
|
Human bio-samples
|
0(0)
|
24(25.8)
|
1(8.3)
|
12(26.1)
|
37(24.2)
|
|
All of the above
|
0(0)
|
19(12.4)
|
1(8.3)
|
1(2.2)
|
21(13.7)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
Do you think that a manuscript can be rejected due to a lack of proper ethical review?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
2(100)
|
86(92.5)
|
12(100)
|
44(95.7)
|
144(94.1)
|
1.525, 3, 0.677
|
No
|
0(0)
|
7(7.5)
|
0(0)
|
2(4.3)
|
9(5.9)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
Participants’ perception about capacity building in bioethics
Although majority of the participants 89(58.2%) have had a need for bioethics certification before, about half, 64(41.8%) of the participants have not had any need for bioethics certification before the event, with an appreciable number from civil servants 8(66.7%), students 29(63%) and those holding academic positions 27(29%). There were significant differences in the proportion of participants across their need for a bioethics certification and their occupational status (p < 0.05). Majority of the participants, 147(96.1%) felt there should be regular mid-career training on bioethics for biomedical researchers, and 151(98.7%) of them were willing to participate in future workshops (Table 4).
|
Occupation of study participants
|
|
|
Clinician
|
Academia
|
Civil servant
|
Student/
unemployed
|
Total
|
X2, df, p-value
|
Have you had a need for bioethics certification before?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
2(100)
|
66(71)
|
4(33.3)
|
17(37)
|
89(58.2)
|
19.248, 3, 0.000
|
No
|
0(0)
|
27(29)
|
8(66.7)
|
29(63)
|
64(41.8)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think that there should be a regular mid-career training on bioethics?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
0(0)
|
92(98.9)
|
12(100)
|
43(93.5)
|
147(96.1)
|
52.315, 3, 0.000
|
No
|
2(100)
|
1(1.1)
|
0(0)
|
3(6.5)
|
6(3.9)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will you wish to participate in future training on bioethics?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
2(100)
|
91(97.9)
|
12(100)
|
46(100)
|
151(98.7)
|
1.307, 3, 0.727
|
No
|
0(0)
|
2(2.1)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
2(1.3)
|
|
Total
|
2(1.3)
|
93(60.8)
|
12(7.8)
|
46(30.1)
|
153(100)
|
|
Table 4: Participants’ perception about capacity building in bioethics