Literature DB >> 16523508

Research on stored biological samples: views of African American and White American cancer patients.

Rebecca D Pentz1, Laurent Billot, David Wendler.   

Abstract

Proposals on consent for research with biological samples should be informed by empirical studies of individuals' views. Studies to date queried mostly white research subjects. The aim of this study was to compare the views of two groups of patients: cancer patients at a university clinic (Winship Cancer Institute at Emory Healthcare) and cancer patients at an inner city county hospital (Grady) who were given the option of tissue banking. Overall, 315/452 (70%) patients completed the survey. The Grady cohort was 86% African American; the Winship cohort was 82% White. The vast majority (95%) of individuals in both cohorts agreed to provide a biological sample for future research. Both cohorts were willing for their samples to be used to study cancer and other diseases, including Alzheimer disease. Few participants preferred to control the disease to be studied (10%) or wished to be contacted again for consent for each future research project (11%). In our sample, almost all clinical patients, regardless of site of care, ethnicity or socioeconomic status, were willing to provide a biological sample for research purposes and allow investigators to determine the research to be done without contacting the patients again. These findings support the recommendation to offer individuals a simplified consent with a one-time binary choice whether to provide biological samples for future research. Copyright 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16523508     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.31154

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  41 in total

1.  Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity matters.

Authors:  Herbert Gottweis; George Gaskell; Johannes Starkbaum
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; Daniel R Morrison; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Biobanks and the phantom public.

Authors:  Herbert Gottweis; Haidan Chen; Johannes Starkbaum
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 4.  An Integrative Review of the Barriers to Indigenous Peoples Participation in Biobanking and Genomic Research.

Authors:  Jaclyn Aramoana; Jonathan Koea
Journal:  J Glob Oncol       Date:  2019-03

5.  Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus.

Authors:  Zubin Master; Erin Nelson; Blake Murdoch; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 28.547

6.  Knowledge and willingness to provide research biospecimens among foreign-born Latinos using safety-net clinics.

Authors:  Christopher A Loffredo; Gheorghe Luta; Sherrie Wallington; Solomon B Makgoeng; Claire Selsky; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Lucile L Adams-Campbell
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2013-08

7.  Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago.

Authors:  Amy A Lemke; Colin Halverson; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  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

9.  Potential bias in the bank: what distinguishes refusers, nonresponders and participants in a clinic-based biobank?

Authors:  J L Ridgeway; L C Han; J E Olson; K A Lackore; B A Koenig; T J Beebe; J Y Ziegenfuss
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples.

Authors:  E Vermeulen; M K Schmidt; N K Aaronson; M Kuenen; M-J Baas-Vrancken Peeters; H van der Poel; S Horenblas; H Boot; V J Verwaal; A Cats; F E van Leeuwen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.