Laura M Beskow1, Elizabeth Dean. 1. Duke Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, 240 North Building, Box 90141, Durham, NC 27708, USA. laura.beskow@duke.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Obtaining informed consent for the collection, storage, and future research use of biospecimens is challenging, as potentially complex and controversial information must be communicated clearly. We gathered input on a consent template developed for the Duke Biorepository from individuals representative of those who might one day consider contributing specimens. METHODS: Forty subjects were recruited from the Durham, NC area and screened to achieve diversity by race/ethnicity, education, age, and sex. Cognitive interviews assessed participants' (a) understanding of information in the template, and (b) opinions about that information. Participants also completed a survey assessing trust in medical researchers. RESULTS: Interviewees seemed to understand the template. Although responses were diverse, majority views emerged: more than half were comfortable with indefinite biospecimen storage, periodic contact to update information and to inform participants of additional research opportunities, the prospect that commercial products could be developed, and the fact that profits would not be shared. More than half were willing to provide medical record access, although this was a primary concern for others. More than two thirds were comfortable with not receiving individual research results as a matter of routine, but many thought they should be informed of findings with serious health implications. Lack of trust in researchers was associated with declining certain consent options. CONCLUSIONS: Protecting and promoting trust in research is essential to fostering widespread participation in biorepositories. Biorepositories should also devise ways to communicate clearly about the research being conducted and what is being learned.
PURPOSE: Obtaining informed consent for the collection, storage, and future research use of biospecimens is challenging, as potentially complex and controversial information must be communicated clearly. We gathered input on a consent template developed for the Duke Biorepository from individuals representative of those who might one day consider contributing specimens. METHODS: Forty subjects were recruited from the Durham, NC area and screened to achieve diversity by race/ethnicity, education, age, and sex. Cognitive interviews assessed participants' (a) understanding of information in the template, and (b) opinions about that information. Participants also completed a survey assessing trust in medical researchers. RESULTS: Interviewees seemed to understand the template. Although responses were diverse, majority views emerged: more than half were comfortable with indefinite biospecimen storage, periodic contact to update information and to inform participants of additional research opportunities, the prospect that commercial products could be developed, and the fact that profits would not be shared. More than half were willing to provide medical record access, although this was a primary concern for others. More than two thirds were comfortable with not receiving individual research results as a matter of routine, but many thought they should be informed of findings with serious health implications. Lack of trust in researchers was associated with declining certain consent options. CONCLUSIONS: Protecting and promoting trust in research is essential to fostering widespread participation in biorepositories. Biorepositories should also devise ways to communicate clearly about the research being conducted and what is being learned.
Authors: Laura M Beskow; Kristen N Linney; Rodney A Radtke; Erin L Heinzen; David B Goldstein Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Patchareeya P Kwan; Greta Briand; Cevadne Lee; Jonathan Tana Lepule; Jane Ka'ala Pang; Melanie Sabado; Lola Sablan-Santos; Dorothy Schmidt-Vaivao; Sora Tanjasiri; Vanessa Tui'one; Paula H Palmer Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2014-01-06
Authors: Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; David Kaufman; Gail Geller; Lisa LeRoy; Kathy Hudson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Shannon Rego; Orit Dagan-Rosenfeld; Stephanie A Bivona; Michael P Snyder; Kelly E Ormond Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: K M Haldeman; R J Cadigan; A Davis; A Goldenberg; G E Henderson; D Lassiter; E Reavely Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Marc T Kiviniemi; Frances G Saad-Harfouche; Gregory L Ciupak; Warren Davis; Kirsten Moysich; Nikia Clark Hargrave; Christine B Ambrosone; Charles Walker; Deborah O Erwin Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.037