Literature DB >> 19839045

Maternal attitudes toward DNA collection for gene-environment studies: a qualitative research study.

Mary M Jenkins1, Erika Reed-Gross, Sonja A Rasmussen, Wanda D Barfield, Christine E Prue, Margaret L Gallagher, Margaret A Honein.   

Abstract

To assess attitudes toward DNA collection in an epidemiological study, focus groups were assembled in September 2007 with mothers who had participated in a case-control study of birth defects. Each recruited mother previously had completed an interview and had received a mailed kit containing cytobrushes to collect buccal cells for DNA from herself, her infant, and her infant's father during the period July 2004 through July 2007. A total of 38 mothers attended six focus groups comprising: (1) non-Hispanic Black mothers of case infants who participated or (2) did not participate in DNA collection, (3) mothers of any race or ethnicity who had case infants of low birth weight who participated or (4) did not participate in DNA collection, and (5) non-Hispanic Black mothers of control infants who participated or (6) did not participate in DNA collection. Moderator-led discussions probed maternal attitudes toward providing specimens, factors that influenced decision making, and collection method preferences. Biologics participants reported that they provided DNA for altruistic reasons. Biologics nonparticipants voiced concerns about government involvement and how their DNA will be used. Information provided (or not provided) on DNA use, storage, and disposal influenced decision making. Biologics participants and nonparticipants reported that paternal skepticism was a barrier to participation. All mothers were asked to rank DNA collection methods in terms of preference (cytobrushes, saliva, mouthwash, newborn blood spots, and blood collection). Preferred methods were convenient and noninvasive. Better understanding attitudes toward DNA collection and preferred collection methods might allow more inclusive participation and benefit future studies. Copyright 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19839045     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33043

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  The National Birth Defects Prevention Study: A review of the methods.

Authors:  Jennita Reefhuis; Suzanne M Gilboa; Marlene Anderka; Marilyn L Browne; Marcia L Feldkamp; Charlotte A Hobbs; Mary M Jenkins; Peter H Langlois; Kimberly B Newsome; Andrew F Olshan; Paul A Romitti; Stuart K Shapira; Gary M Shaw; Sarah C Tinker; Margaret A Honein
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2015-06-02

2.  Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out, de-identified biobank.

Authors:  Jill Pulley; Ellen Clayton; Gordon R Bernard; Dan M Roden; Daniel R Masys
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.689

3.  Inclusion of pediatric samples in an opt-out biorepository linking DNA to de-identified medical records: pediatric BioVU.

Authors:  T L McGregor; S L Van Driest; K B Brothers; E A Bowton; L J Muglia; D M Roden
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  Challenges in Studying Modifiable Risk Factors for Birth Defects.

Authors:  Sarah C Tinker; Suzanne Gilboa; Jennita Reefhuis; Mary M Jenkins; Marcy Schaeffer; Cynthia A Moore
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2015-03

5.  Parental Perspectives on a Pediatric Human Non-Subjects Biobank.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  AJOB Prim Res       Date:  2012-06-19

6.  Factors affecting maternal participation in the genetic component of the National Birth Defects Prevention Study-United States, 1997-2007.

Authors:  Jill Glidewell; Jennita Reefhuis; Sonja A Rasmussen; Alison Woomert; Charlotte Hobbs; Paul A Romitti; Krista S Crider
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Personalized assent for pediatric biobanks.

Authors:  Noor A A Giesbertz; Karen Melham; Jane Kaye; Johannes J M van Delden; Annelien L Bredenoord
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  Sharing longitudinal, non-biological birth cohort data: a cross-sectional analysis of parent consent preferences.

Authors:  Kiran Pohar Manhas; Shawn X Dodd; Stacey Page; Nicole Letourneau; Carol E Adair; Xinjie Cui; Suzanne C Tough
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  Adjustments for oral fluid quality and collection methods improve prediction of circulating tetanus antitoxin: Approaches for correcting antibody concentrations detected in a non-invasive specimen.

Authors:  Henri Garrison-Desany; Benard Omondi Ochieng; Maurice R Odiere; Helen Kuo; Dustin G Gibson; Joyce Were; E Wangeci Kagucia; Marcela F Pasetti; Hani Kim; Mardi Reymann; Katherine O'Brien; Kyla Hayford
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 3.641

10.  Analysis of motivations that lead women to participate (or not) in a newborn cohort study.

Authors:  Liza Vecchi Brumatti; Marcella Montico; Stefano Russian; Veronica Tognin; Maura Bin; Fabio Barbone; Patrizia Volpi; Luca Ronfani
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 2.125

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.