BACKGROUND: The authors define a DNA biobank as a repository of genetic information correlated with patient medical records. DNA biobanks may assist in the research and identification of genetic factors influencing disease and drug interactions, but may raise ethical issues. How healthcare providers perceive DNA biobanks is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine how useful healthcare professionals believe DNA biobanks will be and whether these attitudes differ between private and socialized healthcare systems. DESIGN: The authors surveyed 200 healthcare professionals, including research and non-research focused doctors, nurses and other staff from medical centers and independent practice in both the United States and Scotland. The survey included fifteen items evaluated for general receptiveness toward biobanks, presumed usefulness of biobanks and perceived attitudes in recruiting patients for a biobank. MEASUREMENTS: A total of 81 (45%) of 179 eligible participants responded: 41 from the U.S. and 40 from Scotland. Of these respondents, most (70%) were from academic centers. RESULTS: Results indicate that there is a broadly favorable attitude in both locations toward the creation of a DNA biobank (83%) and its perceived benefit (75%). This enthusiasm is tempered in Scotland when respondents evaluated their comfort in consenting patients for entry into a biobank; 16 of 40 respondents (40%) were uncomfortable doing so, representing a significant difference from those in the U.S. (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite systematic differences in healthcare practice between the U.S. and Scotland, health care professionals in both nations believe DNA biobanks will be useful in curing disease. This finding appears to support further development of such a research tool.
BACKGROUND: The authors define a DNA biobank as a repository of genetic information correlated with patient medical records. DNA biobanks may assist in the research and identification of genetic factors influencing disease and drug interactions, but may raise ethical issues. How healthcare providers perceive DNA biobanks is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine how useful healthcare professionals believe DNA biobanks will be and whether these attitudes differ between private and socialized healthcare systems. DESIGN: The authors surveyed 200 healthcare professionals, including research and non-research focused doctors, nurses and other staff from medical centers and independent practice in both the United States and Scotland. The survey included fifteen items evaluated for general receptiveness toward biobanks, presumed usefulness of biobanks and perceived attitudes in recruiting patients for a biobank. MEASUREMENTS: A total of 81 (45%) of 179 eligible participants responded: 41 from the U.S. and 40 from Scotland. Of these respondents, most (70%) were from academic centers. RESULTS: Results indicate that there is a broadly favorable attitude in both locations toward the creation of a DNA biobank (83%) and its perceived benefit (75%). This enthusiasm is tempered in Scotland when respondents evaluated their comfort in consenting patients for entry into a biobank; 16 of 40 respondents (40%) were uncomfortable doing so, representing a significant difference from those in the U.S. (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite systematic differences in healthcare practice between the U.S. and Scotland, health care professionals in both nations believe DNA biobanks will be useful in curing disease. This finding appears to support further development of such a research tool.
Authors: Stephen J Chanock; Teri Manolio; Michael Boehnke; Eric Boerwinkle; David J Hunter; Gilles Thomas; Joel N Hirschhorn; Goncalo Abecasis; David Altshuler; Joan E Bailey-Wilson; Lisa D Brooks; Lon R Cardon; Mark Daly; Peter Donnelly; Joseph F Fraumeni; Nelson B Freimer; Daniela S Gerhard; Chris Gunter; Alan E Guttmacher; Mark S Guyer; Emily L Harris; Josephine Hoh; Robert Hoover; C Augustine Kong; Kathleen R Merikangas; Cynthia C Morton; Lyle J Palmer; Elizabeth G Phimister; John P Rice; Jerry Roberts; Charles Rotimi; Margaret A Tucker; Kyle J Vogan; Sholom Wacholder; Ellen M Wijsman; Deborah M Winn; Francis S Collins Journal: Nature Date: 2007-06-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Nicole J Caixeiro; Hei Lan Byun; Joseph Descallar; Janelle V Levesque; Paul de Souza; Cheok Soon Lee Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: S Trent Rosenbloom; Jennifer L Madison; Kyle B Brothers; Erica A Bowton; Ellen Wright Clayton; Bradley A Malin; Dan M Roden; Jill Pulley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kristen J Wells; Mariana Arevalo; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede; Gwendolyn P Quinn; John S Luque; Gloria San Miguel; Dale Watson; Rebecca Phillips; Carmen Reyes; Margarita Romo; Jim West; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Danijela Budimir; Ozren Polasek; Ana Marusić; Ivana Kolcić; Tatijana Zemunik; Vesna Boraska; Ana Jeroncić; Mladen Boban; Harry Campbell; Igor Rudan Journal: Croat Med J Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 1.351