Literature DB >> 15795341

Research with stored biological samples: what do research participants want?

Donna T Chen1, Donald L Rosenstein, Palaniappan Muthappan, Susan G Hilsenbeck, Franklin G Miller, Ezekiel J Emanuel, David Wendler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is widespread disagreement about the type of consent needed for research with stored biological samples. Many believe consent for each future use is required to respect individuals. Others worry this approach may block important research.
METHODS: We analyzed 1670 consent forms signed by research participants at the Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, between January 1, 2000, and May 31, 2002, that offer options for future research with participants' biological samples. The research participants were healthy volunteers, family members of affected individuals, and individuals with a broad range of medical conditions enrolled in clinical research studies with and without the prospect of direct medical benefit.
RESULTS: Overall, 87.1% of research participants given the option chose to authorize future research on any medical condition. More than 85% permitted unlimited future research with their stored biological samples regardless of sex, age, geographic location, or whether the individual was affected by the disease being studied or a healthy volunteer. Only 6.7% of those given the option to refuse all future research did so. Although African Americans were less likely to permit future research, 75.0% of African Americans still authorized unlimited future research with their samples.
CONCLUSIONS: Most research participants authorize the unlimited future research use of their biological samples when given the opportunity to do so. These findings suggest that providing research participants with a simple binary choice to authorize or refuse all future research might allow individuals to control use of their samples, simplify consent forms, and allow important research to proceed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15795341     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.6.652

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  43 in total

1.  Policy issues and stakeholder concerns regarding the storage and use of residual newborn dried blood samples for research.

Authors:  Erin Rothwell; Rebecca Anderson; Jeffrey Botkin
Journal:  Policy Polit Nurs Pract       Date:  2010-05-10

2.  Biobank Recruitment: Motivations for Nonparticipation.

Authors:  Katrina A B Goddard; K Sabina Smith; Chuhe Chen; Carmit McMullen; Cheryl Johnson
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.300

3.  A survey of the SWISS researchers on the impact of sibling privacy protections on pedigree recruitment.

Authors:  Bradford B Worrall; Donna T Chen; Robert D Brown; Thomas G Brott; James F Meschia
Journal:  Neuroepidemiology       Date:  2005-04-25       Impact factor: 3.282

4.  The relevance of empirical research in bioethics.

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; David Wendler
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-09-28       Impact factor: 9.306

Review 5.  Genetic, ethnic, and gender differences in the pharmacokinetics of antiretroviral agents.

Authors:  Margalida Rotger; Chantal Csajka; Amalio Telenti
Journal:  Curr HIV/AIDS Rep       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.071

Review 6.  One-time general consent for research on biological samples.

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

7.  Factors influencing public participation in biobanking.

Authors:  Mamoun Ahram; Areej Othman; Manal Shahrouri; Ebtihal Mustafa
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 8.  Informed consent in genomics and genetic research.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 8.929

9.  Public Attitudes toward Consent and Data Sharing in Biobank Research: A Large Multi-site Experimental Survey in the US.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Kyle B Brothers; Nathaniel D Mercaldo; Ellen Wright Clayton; Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Sharon A Aufox; Murray H Brilliant; Diego Campos; David S Carrell; John Connolly; Pat Conway; Stephanie M Fullerton; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Carol R Horowitz; Gail P Jarvik; David Kaufman; Terrie E Kitchner; Rongling Li; Evette J Ludman; Catherine A McCarty; Jennifer B McCormick; Valerie D McManus; Melanie F Myers; Aaron Scrol; Janet L Williams; Martha J Shrubsole; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Maureen E Smith; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

Authors:  Teddy D Warner; Carol J Weil; Christopher Andry; Howard B Degenholtz; Lisa Parker; Latarsha J Carithers; Michelle Feige; David Wendler; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.