The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Murtagh, Madeleine J ^a,b   Minion, Joel T ^a   Turner, Andrew ^a   Wilson, Rebecca C ^a   Blell, Mwenza ^c   Ochieng, Cynthia ^a   Murtagh, Barnaby ^a,d   Roberts, Stephanie ^a   Butters, Oliver W ^a   Burton, Paul R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d Urban Cow Productions ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

ECOUTER; ELSI; Empirical ethics; Engagement; Epistemic; Mindmap; New technologies; Ontological; Translation

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; CREATIVITY; DEMOCRACY; ETHICS; EXERCISE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY;

COMMUNICATION; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 85016838716     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-017-0167-z     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Maienschein J, et al. The ethos and ethics of translational research. Am J Bioeth. 2008;8:43-51.
2. Callard F, Rose D, Wykes T. Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expect. 2012;15:389-400.
3. Singh I, Rose N. Biomarkers in psychiatry. Nat. 2009;460:202-7.
4. Burgess MM. From ‘trust us’ to participatory governance: deliberative publics and science policy. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23:48-52.
5. Wynne B. Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci Technol Soc. 2007;1:99-110.
6. Kaye J, et al. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13:371-6.
7. Secko DM, Burgess M, O’Doherty K. Perspectives on engaging the public in the ethics of emerging biotechnologies: from salmon to biobanks to neuroethics. Account Res. 2008;15:283-302.
8. Garrett SB, Dohan D, Koenig BA. Linking broad consent to biobank governance: support from a deliberative public engagement in California. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15:56-7.
9. O’doherty K, et al. Implementing a public deliberative forum. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42:20-3.
10. McWhirter RE, et al. Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool. J Pers Med. 2014;4:459-74.
11. Lemke AA, et al. Community engagement in biobanking: experiences from the eMERGE network. Genomics Soc Policy. 2010;6:35.
12. O’Doherty KC, Hawkins A. Structuring public engagement for effective input in policy development on human tissue biobanking. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13:197-206.
13. Watt AM, et al. The ASTUTE health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implement Sci. 2012;7:1-12.
14. Secko DM, et al. Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. Soc Sci Med. 2009;6:781-9.
15. O'Doherty K, et al. Managing the introduction of biobanks to potential participants: lessons from a deliberative public forum. Biopreserv Biobank. 2012;10:12-21.
16. O'Doherty K, Burgess M, Secko DM. Sequencing the salmon genome: a deliberative public engagement. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2010;6:15.
17. Molster C, et al. Informing public health policy through deliberative public engagement: perceived impact on participants and citizen-government relations. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2013;17:713-8.
18. Mackenzie MK, Warren ME. Two trust-based uses of minipublics in democratic systems. In: Deliberative systems: deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 95-124.
19. Burgess MM. 13 Deriving policy and governance from deliberative events and mini-publics. Regulating Next Generation Agri-Food Biotechnologies: Lessons from European, North American and Asian Experiences. 2013;220.
20. Burgess MM, O’Doherty K. Deliberative public engagement related to governing biobanks: final report. 2007. http://tinyurl.com/h9s2mjq. Accessed 14 Nov 2016
21. Garrett SB, et al. EngageUC: developing an efficient and ethical approach to biobanking research at the University of California. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8:362-6.
22. Olson JE, et al. The Mayo Clinic biobank: a building block for individualized medicine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88:952-62.
23. Spranzi M, Brunet L. The French bioethics public consultation and the anonymity doctrine: empirical ethics and normative assumptions. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015;33:18-28.
24. Kim SY, et al. Assessing the public’s views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2009;4:3-16.
25. Gottweis H, Gaskell G, Starkbaum J. Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity matters. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12:738-9.
26. Winickoff DE. From benefit sharing to power sharing: partnership governance in population genomics research. In: Center for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. 2008. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/845393hh. Accessed 14 Nov 2016
27. Stirling A. Power, truth and progress: towards knowledge democracies in Europe. In: Future directions for scientific advice in Europe. 2015. http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/1/future-directions-for-scientific-advice-in-europe-v6a-online.pdf#page=133. Accessed 14 Nov 2016
28. Solberg B. Biobank consent models-are we moving toward increased participant engagement in biobanking? J Biorepos Sci Appl Med. 2015;3:23-33.
29. Rial-Sebbag E, Cambon-Thomsen A, Mascalzone D. Governing biobanks through a European infrastructure. In: Ethics, law and governance of biobanking: national, European and international approaches. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. p. 139-51.
30. O’Doherty K, Einsiedel E. Public engagement and emerging technologies. Vancouver: UBC Press; 2012.
31. Murtagh MJ, et al. Realizing the promise of population biobanks: a new model for translation. Hum Genet. 2011;130:333-45.
32. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969;35:216-24.
33. Irwin A, Jensen TE, Jones KE. The good, the bad and the perfect: criticizing engagement practice. Soc Stud Sci. 2013;43:118-35.
34. Thomson R, Murtagh M, Khaw F. Tensions in public health policy: patient engagement, evidence-based public health and health inequalities. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:398-400.
35. Derrida J. Of grammatology. 40th ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins; 2016.
36. Foucault M. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge; 2015.
37. Potter J, Wetherell M. Discourse and social psychology: beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage; 1987.
38. Woolgar S, Lezaun J. The wrong bin bag: a turn to ontology in science and technology studies? Soc Stud Sci. 2013;43:321-40.
39. Potter J. Representing reality: discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage; 1996.
40. Foucault M, et al. The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.
41. Foucault M. The subject and power. Crit Inq. 1982;8:777-95.
42. Butler J. Gender trouble and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge; 1990.
43. Butler J. Excitable speech: a politics of the performative. New York: Routledge; 1997.
44. Goffman E. On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry. 1955;18:213-31.
45. Goffman, E. On face-work. In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Ritual. Harmondsworth UK, 1967:5-45
46. University of Bristol: ECOUTER. http://tinyurl.com/hsp8p8c (2016). Accessed 14 Nov 2016
47. Wilson RC. ECOUTER wiki space. https://wikis.bris.ac.uk/display/ECOUT (2016). Accessed 14 Nov 2016
48. Wilson RC, et al. Digital methodology to implement the ECOUTER engagement process. F1000Res. 2016; doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8786.1.
49. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965;12:436-45.
50. Antaki C, et al. Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. 2003. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/633. Accessed 14 Nov 2016.
51. Diaz-Bone R, et al. The field of Foucaultian discourse analysis: Structures, developments and perspectives. Hist Soz Forsch. 2008;1:7-28.
52. Hacking I. Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman: between discourse in the abstract and face-to-face interaction. Econ Soc. 2004;3:277-302.
53. Austin JL. How to do things with words. Oxford: Claridon Press; 1975.
54. Searle JR. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: University Rress; 1969.
55. Foucault M. The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. London: Tavistock; 1970.
56. Abelson J, et al. Public deliberation in health policy and bioethics: mapping an emerging, interdisciplinary field. J Public Deliberation. 2013;9:5.
57. Avard D, et al. Public health genomics (PHG) and public participation: points to consider. J Public Deliberation. 2009;5:7.
58. Chalmers D, et al. New avenues within community engagement: addressing the ingenuity gap in our approach to health research and future provision of health care. J Responsible Innov. 2014;1:321-8.
59. Cohn EG, et al. Increasing participation in genomic research and biobanking through community-based capacity building. J Genet Couns. 2015;24:491-502.
60. Etchegary H, et al. Consulting the community: public expectations and attitudes about genetics research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:1338-43.
61. Godard B, Marshall J, Laberge C. Community engagement in genetic research: results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE project. Public Health Genomics. 2007;10:147-58.
62. Lemke AA, Harris-Wai JN. Stakeholder engagement in policy development: challenges and opportunities for human genomics. Genet Med. 2015;17:949-57.
63. O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics. 2008;12:203-15.
64. O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM. Public deliberation to develop ethical norms and inform policy for biobanks: lessons learnt and challenges remaining. Res Ethics. 2013;9:55-77.
65. Peacock SJ. Public attitudes and values in priority setting. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s13584-015-0025-8.
66. Rikkers W, et al. Two methods for engaging with the community in setting priorities for child health research: who engages? PloS One. 2015. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125969.
67. Tello-Rozas S, Pozzebon M, Mailhot C. Uncovering micro-practices and pathways of engagement that scale up social-driven collaborations: a practice view of power. J Manage Stud. 2015;52:1064-96.
68. Wilcox ES. A lego model to help inform participants at the British Columbia Biobank deliberation. Health Law Rev. 2008;16:9-11.
69. Murtagh MJ, et al. International data sharing in practice: new technologies meet old governance. Biopreserv Biobank. 2016;14:231-40.
70. Boyd A, et al. Cohort profile: the ‘Children of the 90s’ - the index offspring of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:111-27.
71. Molewijk AC, et al. Implicit normativity in evidence-based medicine: a plea for integrated empirical ethics research. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:69-92.
72. Davies R, Ives J, Dunn M. A systematic review of empirical bioethics methodologies. BMC Med Ethics. 2015. doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0010-3.
73. Burchel G, Gordon C, Miller P. The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago; 1991.
74. Haliburton R. Autonomy and the situated self: a challenge to bioethics. Plymouth: Lexington; 2013.
75. Mackenzie C, Stoljar N, editors. Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford: University Press; 2000.
76. Ives J. A method of reflexive balancing in a pragmatic, interdisciplinary and reflexive bioethics. Bioethics. 2014;28:302-12.