Literature DB >> 18559560

Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants' understanding and opinions.

Laura M Beskow1, Elizabeth Dean.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18559560     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  57 in total

1.  Ethical challenges in genotype-driven research recruitment.

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

2.  Use of a community-based participatory research approach to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs on biospecimen research among Pacific Islanders.

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

3.  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 4.  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

5.  Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking.

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

6.  Much ado about nothing: A qualitative study of the experiences of an average-risk population receiving results of exome sequencing.

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

7.  Community engagement in US biobanking: multiplicity of meaning and method.

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

8.  Research understanding, attitude and awareness towards biobanking: a survey among Italian twin participants to a genetic epidemiological study.

Authors:  Virgilia Toccaceli; Corrado Fagnani; Lorenza Nisticò; Cristina D'Ippolito; Lorenzo Giannantonio; Sonia Brescianini; Maria Antonietta Stazi
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  Pilot intervention outcomes of an educational program for biospecimen research participation.

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

10.  Planning for translational research in genomics.

Authors:  Naomi Hawkins; Jantina de Vries; Paula Boddington; Jane Kaye; Catherine Heeney
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 11.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.