ABSTRACT
Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) is the most common x-linked monogenic cause of Intellectual Disability (ID) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Taking care of children with ID is challenging and overwhelming due to the multiple facets of caregiving. This scoping review aimed at summarizing the qualitative literature on the experiences of families living with FXS, identify key themes and determine the gaps in the extant literature. We conducted a literature search in May 2019 using four databases; PubMed, Web of Science, African-Wide-Information, and Scopus. The keywords used in our search strategy were associated with caregivers, lived experiences, FXS, and qualitative research. All English language articles with full-text reporting were included. Studies associated with other neurodevelopmental conditions and quantitative studies were excluded. We identified 12 out of 203 articles that described the lived experiences of families with FXS. Most articles originated from the United States of America and mothers were the main caregivers. We summarized our findings into four major themes which are; grief experiences, challenges of living with FXS, coping mechanisms and the need to plan for future outcomes. This scoping review highlights the scarcity of qualitative FXS literature in the African population and frustrations endured by families with FXS due to the low knowledge of FXS by healthcare workers. More research is needed to evaluate the impact of living with FXS in males and fathers.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The introduction of genomics and biobanking methodologies to the African research context has also introduced novel ways of doing science, based on values of sharing and reuse of data and samples. This shift raises ethical challenges that need to be considered when research is reviewed by ethics committees, relating for instance to broad consent, the feedback of individual genetic findings, and regulation of secondary sample access and use. Yet existing ethics guidelines and regulations in Africa do not successfully regulate research based on sharing, causing confusion about what is allowed, where and when. METHODS: In order to understand better the ethics regulatory landscape around genomic research and biobanking, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of existing ethics guidelines, policies and other similar sources. We sourced 30 ethics regulatory documents from 22 African countries. We used software that assists with qualitative data analysis to conduct a thematic analysis of these documents. RESULTS: Surprisingly considering how contentious broad consent is in Africa, we found that most countries allow the use of this consent model, with its use banned in only three of the countries we investigated. In a likely response to fears about exploitation, the export of samples outside of the continent is strictly regulated, sometimes in conjunction with regulations around international collaboration. We also found that whilst an essential and critical component of ensuring ethical best practice in genomics research relates to the governance framework that accompanies sample and data sharing, this was most sparingly covered in the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for ethics guidelines in African countries to be adapted to the changing science policy landscape, which increasingly supports principles of openness, storage, sharing and secondary use. Current guidelines are not pertinent to the ethical challenges that such a new orientation raises, and therefore fail to provide accurate guidance to ethics committees and researchers.
