Literature DB >> 15994356

Informed consent, participation in, and withdrawal from a population based cohort study involving genetic analysis.

K Matsui1, Y Kita, H Ueshima.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Population based cohort studies involving genetic research have been initiated in several countries. However, research published to date provides little information on the willingness of the general population to participate in such studies. Furthermore, there is a need to discover the optimal methods for acquiring fully informed consent from the general population. We therefore examined the results of a population based genetic cohort study to identify the factors affecting the participation rate by members of the general public and also specifically to examine the impact of different consent procedures on the rate of participation by prospective candidates and their subsequent withdrawal rate from the study.
DESIGN: Descriptive analyses. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study evaluated two non-genetic subcohorts comprising 3166 people attending for a health checkup during 2002, and two genetic subcohorts comprising 2195 people who underwent a checkup during 2003. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Analysis endpoints were differences in participation rates between the non-genetic and genetic subcohorts, differences between providing non-extensive and extensive preliminary information, and changes in participation status between baseline and at 6 months.
RESULTS: Participation rates in the genetic subcohorts were 4.7-9.3% lower than those in the non-genetic subcohorts. The odds ratios (OR) of participation in genetic research were between 0.60 and 0.77, and the OR for withdrawal from the research was over 7.70; providing preliminary extensive information about genetic research reduced the withdrawal risks (OR 0.15 for all dependent variables) but worsened participation rates (OR 0.63-0.74).
CONCLUSIONS: The general population responded sceptically towards genetic research. It is crucial that genetic researchers utilise an informative and educational consent process worthy of public trust.

Entities:  

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

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15994356      PMCID: PMC1734191          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2004.009530

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  17 in total

Review 1.  The Icelandic database--do modern times need modern sagas?

Authors:  R Chadwick
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-08-14

2.  Safeguards for research using large scale DNA collections.

Authors:  J Kaye; P Martin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-11-04

3.  Racial differences in testing motivation and psychological distress following pretest education for BRCA1 gene testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; C Hughes; J L Benkendorf; B Biesecker; J Kerner; J Willison; N Eads; D Hadley; J Lynch
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  The impact of disease severity on the informed consent process in clinical research.

Authors:  M H Schaeffer; D S Krantz; A Wichman; H Masur; E Reed; J K Vinicky
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  Interest in learning of personal genetic risk for cancer: a general population survey.

Authors:  M A Andrykowski; R K Munn; J L Studts
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Attitudes and interest in genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility in diverse groups of women in western Washington.

Authors:  S J Durfy; D J Bowen; A McTiernan; J Sporleder; W Burke
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Attitudes toward clinical trials among patients and the public.

Authors:  B R Cassileth; E J Lusk; D S Miller; S Hurwitz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-08-27       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Informed consent -- why are its goals imperfectly realized?

Authors:  B R Cassileth; R V Zupkis; K Sutton-Smith; V March
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-04-17       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Predictors of participation in genetic research in a primary care physician network.

Authors:  A W Helmes; D J Bowen; R Bowden; J Bengel
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Public acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic manipulation.

Authors:  D R Macer
Journal:  Hum Gene Ther       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 5.695

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  One-time general consent for research on biological samples.

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

2.  Genetic research participation in a young adult community sample.

Authors:  Carla L Storr; Flora Or; William W Eaton; Nicholas Ialongo
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-06-20

3.  Effect of ethnicity, gender and drug use history on achieving high rates of affirmative informed consent for genetics research: impact of sharing with a national repository.

Authors:  Brenda Ray; Colin Jackson; Elizabeth Ducat; Ann Ho; Sara Hamon; Mary Jeanne Kreek
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2011-01-25       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Reflexive research ethics in fetal tissue xenotransplantation research.

Authors:  Bindu Panikkar; Natasha Smith; Phil Brown
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  Participant characteristics that influence consent for genetic research in a population-based survey: the Baltimore epidemiologic catchment area follow-up.

Authors:  Briana Mezuk; William W Eaton; Peter Zandi
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2008-03-26

6.  Data retention after a patient withdraws consent in clinical trials.

Authors:  André P Gabriel; Charles P Mercado
Journal:  Open Access J Clin Trials       Date:  2011-04

7.  Patient characteristics and participation in a genetic study: a type 2 diabetes cohort.

Authors:  Loabat Amiri; Andrea E Cassidy-Bushrow; Heather Dakki; Jia Li; Karen Wells; Susan A Oliveria; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Abraham Thomas; David E Lanfear
Journal:  J Investig Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Consent for Use of Genetic Data among US Hispanics/Latinos: Results from the Hispanic Community Health Study/ Study of Latinos.

Authors:  Sara Gonzalez; Garrett Strizich; Carmen R Isasi; Simin Hua; Betsy Comas; Tamar Sofer; Bharat Thyagarajan; Krista M Perreira; Gregory A Talavera; Martha L Daviglus; Sarah C Nelson; Aida L Giachello; Neil Schneiderman; Robert C Kaplan
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 1.847

9.  How are European birth-cohort studies engaging and consulting with young cohort members?

Authors:  Patricia J Lucas; Debra Allnock; Tricia Jessiman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Characteristics of Australian cohort study participants who do and do not take up an additional invitation to join a long-term biobank: The 45 and Up Study.

Authors:  Emily Banks; Nicol Herbert; Tanya Mather; Kris Rogers; Louisa Jorm
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2012-11-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.