Literature DB >> 19161150

Assessing the understanding of biobank participants.

K E Ormond1, A L Cirino, I B Helenowski, R L Chisholm, W A Wolf.   

Abstract

Biobanks have been developed as a tool to better understand the genetic basis of disease by linking DNA samples to corresponding medical information. The broad scope of such projects presents a challenge to informed consent and participant understanding. To address this, 200 telephone interviews were conducted with participants in the NUgene Project, Northwestern University's biobank. Interviews included a modified version of the "quality of informed consent measure" (QuIC) and semi-structured questions which were analyzed thematically for 109 of the interviews. The QuIC, originally applied to cancer clinical trials, objectively assessed some of the components of informed consent for a biobank, and interview questions provided rich data to assist in interpreting participant understanding. The best understood domains included: the nature of the study, benefit to future patients, and the voluntary nature of participation. Lower knowledge scores included: potential risks and discomforts, experimental nature of the research, procedures in the event of study-related injury, and confidentiality issues. Qualitatively, confidentiality protections of the study were described as good by most (>50%). Although some cited concerns with employer (12%) or insurance discrimination (25%), most considered the risks to privacy low (25%) or none (approximately 60%). Only 10% of participants explicitly stated they had no expectation for personal benefit, and when asked whether they expected to be contacted with study results, respondents were split between having no expectation (39%), being hopeful for results (37%) and expecting to be contacted with results (12%). These findings are informative to those establishing and implementing biobanks, and to the IRBs reviewing such studies. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19161150     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.32635

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


  74 in total

1.  Research participants' perspectives on genotype-driven research recruitment.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Emily E Namey; R Jean Cadigan; Tracy Brazg; Julia Crouch; Gail E Henderson; Marsha Michie; Daniel K Nelson; Holly K Tabor; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  Engaging African-Americans about biobanks and the return of research results.

Authors:  Colin Me Halverson; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-03-28

3.  Genetics and cardiovascular disease: a policy statement from the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Euan A Ashley; Ray E Hershberger; Colleen Caleshu; Patrick T Ellinor; Joe G N Garcia; David M Herrington; Carolyn Y Ho; Julie A Johnson; Steven J Kittner; Calum A Macrae; Gia Mudd-Martin; Daniel J Rader; Dan M Roden; Derek Scholes; Frank W Sellke; Jeffrey A Towbin; Jennifer Van Eyk; Bradford B Worrall
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Ethical and practical challenges to studying patients who opt out of large-scale biorepository research.

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

5.  Public perspectives on biospecimen procurement: what biorepositories should consider.

Authors:  Jamie L'Heureux; Jeffrey C Murray; Elizabeth Newbury; Laura Shinkunas; Christian M Simon
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 6.  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

Review 7.  The Bio-PIN: a concept to improve biobanking.

Authors:  J J Nietfeld; Jeremy Sugarman; Jan-Eric Litton
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 60.716

8.  Ethical considerations in biobanks: how a public health ethics perspective sheds new light on old controversies.

Authors:  Alice Hawkins Virani; Holly Longstaff
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Understanding participation by African Americans in cancer genetics research.

Authors:  Jasmine A McDonald; Frances K Barg; Benita Weathers; Carmen E Guerra; Andrea B Troxel; Susan Domchek; Deborah Bowen; Judy A Shea; Chanita Hughes Halbert
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.798

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.