Literature DB >> 19878915

Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

David J Kaufman1, Juli Murphy-Bollinger, Joan Scott, Kathy L Hudson.   

Abstract

Concerns about privacy may deter people from participating in genetic research. Recruitment and retention of biobank participants requires understanding the nature and magnitude of these concerns. Potential participants in a proposed biobank were asked about their willingness to participate, their privacy concerns, informed consent, and data sharing. A representative survey of 4659 U.S. adults was conducted. Ninety percent of respondents would be concerned about privacy, 56% would be concerned about researchers having their information, and 37% would worry that study data could be used against them. However, 60% would participate in the biobank if asked. Nearly half (48%) would prefer to provide consent once for all research approved by an oversight panel, whereas 42% would prefer to provide consent for each project separately. Although 92% would allow academic researchers to use study data, 80% and 75%, respectively, would grant access to government and industry researchers. Concern about privacy was related to lower willingness to participate only when respondents were told that they would receive $50 for participation and would not receive individual research results back. Among respondents who were told that they would receive $200 or individual research results, privacy concerns were not related to willingness. Survey respondents valued both privacy and participation in biomedical research. Despite pervasive privacy concerns, 60% would participate in a biobank. Assuring research participants that their privacy will be protected to the best of researchers' abilities may increase participants' acceptance of consent for broad research uses of biobank data by a wide range of researchers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19878915      PMCID: PMC2775831          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  46 in total

1.  Genetic testing of stored biological samples: views of 570 U.S. workers.

Authors:  Jinger G Hoop; Laura Weiss Roberts; Katherine A Green Hammond
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2009-06

2.  Civilian and military genetics: nondiscrimination policy in a post-GINA world.

Authors:  Susannah Baruch; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  What does it mean to be identifiable?

Authors:  Sara Chandros Hull; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine.

Authors:  D M Roden; J M Pulley; M A Basford; G R Bernard; E W Clayton; J R Balser; D R Masys
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 6.875

5.  Confidentiality, privacy, and security of genetic and genomic test information in electronic health records: points to consider.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Rebecca Fisher; Paul Cusenza; Kathy Hudson; Mark A Rothstein; Deven McGraw; Stephen Matteson; John Glaser; Douglas E Henley
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Assessing patient readiness for the clinical adoption of personalized medicine.

Authors:  A M Issa; W Tufail; J Hutchinson; J Tenorio; M Poonam Baliga
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Influence of genetic discrimination perceptions and knowledge on cancer genetics referral practice among clinicians.

Authors:  Katrina J Lowstuter; Sharon Sand; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Kimberly C Banks; Carol A Lee; Barbara U Schwerin; Margaret Juarez; Gwen C Uman; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Patients' views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research.

Authors:  Sara Chandros Hull; Richard R Sharp; Jeffrey R Botkin; Mark Brown; Mark Hughes; Jeremy Sugarman; Debra Schwinn; Pamela Sankar; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Brian R Clarridge; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.229

9.  Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study.

Authors:  David Kaufman; Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays.

Authors:  Nils Homer; Szabolcs Szelinger; Margot Redman; David Duggan; Waibhav Tembe; Jill Muehling; John V Pearson; Dietrich A Stephan; Stanley F Nelson; David W Craig
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2008-08-29       Impact factor: 5.917

View more
  125 in total

1.  Donation intentions for cancer genetics research among African Americans.

Authors:  Jasmine A McDonald; Benita Weathers; Frances K Barg; Andrea B Troxel; Judy A Shea; Deborah Bowen; Carmen E Guerra; Chanita Hughes Halbert
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2012-01-06

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.  Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity matters.

Authors:  Herbert Gottweis; George Gaskell; Johannes Starkbaum
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Publics and biobanks: Pan-European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation.

Authors:  George Gaskell; Herbert Gottweis; Johannes Starkbaum; Monica M Gerber; Jacqueline Broerse; Ursula Gottweis; Abbi Hobbs; Ilpo Helén; Maria Paschou; Karoliina Snell; Alexandra Soulier
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Parental Views on Expanded Newborn Screening Using Whole-Genome Sequencing.

Authors:  Galen Joseph; Flavia Chen; Julie Harris-Wai; Jennifer M Puck; Charlotte Young; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Research participants' attitudes towards the confidentiality of genomic sequence information.

Authors:  Leila Jamal; Julie C Sapp; Katie Lewis; Tatiane Yanes; Flavia M Facio; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

Authors:  Teddy D Warner; Carol J Weil; Christopher Andry; Howard B Degenholtz; Lisa Parker; Latarsha J Carithers; Michelle Feige; David Wendler; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 1.742

8.  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

9.  Patient informed governance of distributed research networks: results and discussion from six patient focus groups.

Authors:  Laura A Mamo; Dennis K Browe; Holly C Logan; Katherine K Kim
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

Review 10.  Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data.

Authors:  Jean E McEwen; Joy T Boyer; Kathie Y Sun
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 11.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.