Literature DB >> 12705242

Informed consent for research on stored blood and tissue samples: a survey of institutional review board practices.

Mary Terrell White1, Jennifer Gamm.   

Abstract

Numerous position papers have outlined informed consent recommendations for the collection, storage, and future use of biological samples; however, there currently is no consensus regarding what kinds of information should be included in consent forms. This study aimed to determine whether institutional review boards (IRBs) vary in their informed consent requirements for research on stored biological samples, and whether any variation observed could be correlated to factors such as volume of work, IRB members' familiarity with ethical issues in genetic research, and IRBs' use of either of two policy guidelines as resources. A brief survey was mailed to all IRB chairpersons on a mailing list obtained from the Office for Human Research Protections. Survey questions included whether consent forms for the collection of biological samples for future use address each of six provisions recommended in current guidelines and position statements, and whether IRBs used the Office for Protection from Research Risks' 1993 Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook, chapter 5 (hereinafter IRB Guidebook) or the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's 1999 Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Volume I (hereinafter Report) in their deliberations. Despite a low response rate (22%, 427 respondents), results indicate that IRB practices vary substantially. The degree to which the provisions were included in consent forms was found to correlate positively with IRBs that review a greater volume of protocols annually, those that use the National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report in their deliberations, and those that draw on both the Report and the IRB Guidebook.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12705242     DOI: 10.1080/08989620210354

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   2.622


  11 in total

1.  Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility.

Authors:  Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 2.  One-time general consent for research on biological samples.

Authors:  David Wendler
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-04

Review 3.  Disclosure of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing in pediatric genomic research.

Authors:  Ruqayyah Abdul-Karim; Benjamin E Berkman; David Wendler; Annette Rid; Javed Khan; Tom Badgett; Sara Chandros Hull
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2013-02-11       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 4.  Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.

Authors:  George Silberman; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.911

5.  Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection.

Authors:  Amy A Lemke; Susan B Trinidad; Karen L Edwards; Helene Starks; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 6.  A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn.

Authors:  Lura Abbott; Christine Grady
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: toward a better institutional review board.

Authors:  Barry Bozeman; Catherine Slade; Paul Hirsch
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Inclusion of women, minorities, and children in clinical trials: opinions of research ethics board administrators.

Authors:  Holly A Taylor
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  Specimen collection for induced pluripotent stem cell research: harmonizing the approach to informed consent.

Authors:  Justin Lowenthal; Scott Lipnick; Mahendra Rao; Sara Chandros Hull
Journal:  Stem Cells Transl Med       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 6.940

10.  Patients' views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research.

Authors:  Sara Chandros Hull; Richard R Sharp; Jeffrey R Botkin; Mark Brown; Mark Hughes; Jeremy Sugarman; Debra Schwinn; Pamela Sankar; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Brian R Clarridge; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.