Literature DB >> 19754239

Prospective biorepository participants' perspectives on access to research results.

Laura M Beskow1, Sondra J Smolek.   

Abstract

DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH results to research participants has been the subject of professional guidelines as well as scholarly commentary, yet controversy remains. To gather data on participant perspectives, we interviewed 40 individuals from the Durham, North Carolina area about a biorepository consent form and conducted an in-depth analysis of responses to a series of questions concerning access to research results. Cross-cutting themes emerged about (1) the nature of research; (2) the nature of research results; (3) expectations concerning access to research results; and (4) practical issues in providing access to research results. Our findings highlight the importance for sound policy development of soliciting stakeholder input, and exploring the complexities behind their evaluations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19754239      PMCID: PMC2892166          DOI: 10.1525/jer.2009.4.3.99

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  24 in total

1.  Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Eric Kodish; Charles Weijer
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2003 May-Jun

2.  Do patients participating in clinical trials want to know study results?

Authors:  Ann H Partridge; Harold J Burstein; Rebecca S Gelman; P Kelly Marcom; Eric P Winer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-08-10       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research.

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics.

Authors:  L M Beskow; W Burke; J F Merz; P A Barr; S Terry; V B Penchaszadeh; L O Gostin; M Gwinn; M J Khoury
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Issues of consent and feedback in a genetic epidemiological study of women with breast cancer.

Authors:  M P M Richards; M Ponder; P Pharoah; S Everest; J Mackay
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group.

Authors:  Ebony B Bookman; Aleisha A Langehorne; John H Eckfeldt; Kathleen C Glass; Gail P Jarvik; Michael Klag; Greg Koski; Arno Motulsky; Benjamin Wilfond; Teri A Manolio; Richard R Fabsitz; Russell V Luepker
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: qualitative study of participants' views.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Clare Jackson; Kate C Windridge; Sara Kenyon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-01-09

9.  Impact on survivors of retinoblastoma when informed of study results on risk of second cancers.

Authors:  Charlene J Schulz; Mary P Riddle; Heiddis B Valdimirsdottir; David H Abramson; Charles A Sklar
Journal:  Med Pediatr Oncol       Date:  2003-07

10.  The impact of sharing results of a randomized breast cancer clinical trial with study participants.

Authors:  Ann H Partridge; A C Wolff; P K Marcom; P A Kaufman; L Zhang; R Gelman; C Moore; D Lake; G F Fleming; H S Rugo; J Atkins; E Sampson; D Collyar; E P Winer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2008-06-10       Impact factor: 4.872

View more
  28 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

Review 2.  Health professionals' opinions on supporting a cancer biobank: identification of barriers to combat biobanking pitfalls.

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

Review 3.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

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.  Disclosure of individualized research results: a precautionary approach.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  A closer look at the recommended criteria for disclosing genetic results: perspectives of medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers, and institutional review board chairs.

Authors:  Debra S Brandt; Laura Shinkunas; Stephen L Hillis; Sandra E Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Nancy R Downing; Megan F Liu; Lisa L Shah; Janet K Williams; Christian M Simon
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-04-02       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Canadian Research Ethics Board Leadership Attitudes to the Return of Genetic Research Results to Individuals and Their Families.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  Offering individual genetic research results: context matters.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 17.956

9.  Key Expert Stakeholder Perceptions of the Law of Genomics: Identified Problems and Potential Solutions.

Authors:  Fook Yee Cheung; Lauren Clatch; Susan M Wolf; Ellen Wright Clayton; Frances Lawrenz
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.718

10.  Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study.

Authors:  A A Lemke; D Bick; D Dimmock; P Simpson; R Veith
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 4.438

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.