Literature DB >> 20697289

Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: stakeholder perspectives.

Laura M Beskow1, Joëlle Y Friedman, N Chantelle Hardy, Li Lin, Kevin P Weinfurt.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Complex and sometimes controversial information must be conveyed during the consent process for participation in biorepositories, and studies suggest that consent documents in general are growing in length and complexity. As a first step toward creating a simplified biorepository consent form, we gathered data from multiple stakeholders about what information was most important for prospective participants to know when making a decision about taking part in a biorepository.
METHODS: We recruited 52 research participants, 12 researchers, and 20 institutional review board representatives from Durham and Kannapolis, NC. These subjects were asked to read a model biorepository consent form and highlight sentences they deemed most important.
RESULTS: On average, institutional review board representatives identified 72.3% of the sentences as important; researchers selected 53.0%, and participants 40.4% (P = 0.0004). Participants most often selected sentences about the kinds of individual research results that might be offered, privacy risks, and large-scale data sharing. Researchers highlighted sentences about the biorepository's purpose, privacy protections, costs, and participant access to individual results. Institutional review board representatives highlighted sentences about collection of basic personal information, medical record access, and duration of storage.
CONCLUSION: The differing mandates of these three groups can translate into widely divergent opinions about what information is important and appropriate to include a consent form. These differences could frustrate efforts to move simplified forms--for biobanking as well as for other kinds of research--into actual use, despite continued calls for such forms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20697289      PMCID: PMC3250643          DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181ead64d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  20 in total

1.  Reclassification of cardiovascular risk using integrated clinical and molecular biosignatures: Design of and rationale for the Measurement to Understand the Reclassification of Disease of Cabarrus and Kannapolis (MURDOCK) Horizon 1 Cardiovascular Disease Study.

Authors:  Svati H Shah; Christopher B Granger; Elizabeth R Hauser; William E Kraus; Jie-Lena Sun; Karen Pieper; Charlotte L Nelson; Elizabeth R Delong; Robert M Califf; L Kristin Newby
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.749

2.  The consent problem within DNA biobanks.

Authors:  Darren Shickle
Journal:  Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci       Date:  2006-08-22

3.  Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening?

Authors:  Emma Beardsley; Michael Jefford; Linda Mileshkin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-03-20       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  A consent form template for phase I oncology trials.

Authors:  Shlomo A Koyfman; Mary S McCabe; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Christine Grady
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug

5.  Research consent forms: continued unreadability and increasing length.

Authors:  M E LoVerde; A V Prochazka; R L Byyny
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1989 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?

Authors:  S A Grossman; S Piantadosi; C Covahey
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Why people don't learn from diabetes literature: influence of text and reader characteristics.

Authors:  J C Reid; D M Klachko; C A Kardash; R D Robinson; R Scholes; D Howard
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1995-02

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

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Elizabeth Dean
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Am Coll Dent       Date:  2014

10.  Learner developed materials: an empowering product.

Authors:  R E Rudd; J P Comings
Journal:  Health Educ Q       Date:  1994
View more
  31 in total

1.  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

2.  Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research.

Authors:  Altovise T Ewing; Lori A H Erby; Juli Bollinger; Eva Tetteyfio; Luisel J Ricks-Santi; David Kaufman
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.300

3.  Broad data sharing in genetic research: views of institutional review board professionals.

Authors:  Amy A Lemke; Maureen E Smith; Wendy A Wolf; Susan Brown Trinidad
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2011 May-Jun

4.  The MICHR Genomic DNA BioLibrary: An Empirical Study of the Ethics of Biorepository Development.

Authors:  Blake J Roessler; Nicholas H Steneck; Lisa Connally
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Views of Cohort Study Participants about Returning Research Results in the Context of Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Travis Hyams; Deborah J Bowen; Celeste Condit; Jeremy Grossman; Megan Fitzmaurice; Deborah Goodman; Lari Wenzel; Karen L Edwards
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Informed consent and genomic incidental findings: IRB chair perspectives.

Authors:  Christian M Simon; Janet K Williams; Laura Shinkunas; Debra Brandt; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  Informed Consent in Genome-Scale Research: What Do Prospective Participants Think?

Authors:  Susan Brown Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Julie M Bares; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Wylie Burke
Journal:  AJOB Prim Res       Date:  2012-06-19

8.  An Assessment of a Shortened Consent Form for the Storage and Research Use of Residual Newborn Screening Blood Spots.

Authors:  Erin Rothwell; Aaron Goldenberg; Erin Johnson; Naomi Riches; Beth Tarini; Jeffrey R Botkin
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  Willingness of women to participate in obstetrical and pediatric research involving biobanks.

Authors:  Renate D Savich; Beth B Tigges; Lisbeth Iglesias Rios; Joanne McCloskey; Kristine Tollestrup; Robert D Annett
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-11-28

10.  Participants' recall and understanding of genomic research and large-scale data sharing.

Authors:  Jill Oliver Robinson; Melody J Slashinski; Tao Wang; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.