Literature DB >> 20799322

Communication of biobanks' research results: what do (potential) participants want?

Tineke M Meulenkamp1, Sjef K Gevers, Jasper A Bovenberg, Gerard H Koppelman, Astrid van Hylckama Vlieg, Ellen M A Smets.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate (potential) research participants' (a) information preferences with regard to receiving biobanks' genetic research results, and (b) attitudes towards the duties of researchers to communicate research results. A total group of 1,678 was analyzed, consisting of a sample of the general Dutch population (N=1,163) and patients with asthma, rhinitis, and thrombosis (N=515) who completed a survey including six fictitious genetic research results each presented as aggregate and individual result, varied for treatability and kind of disease. Five questions assessed attitudes towards researchers' duties to communicate research results. Additionally, background characteristics were measured. A majority of the respondents wanted to receive aggregate results as well as individual results. A small majority (59%) held the view that researchers should communicate individual results with no health consequences. One third agreed with an information duty only when treatment is available. A preference for individual results and an attitude in favor of communicating results were both associated with belonging to the general Dutch population rather than being a patient, wanting to learn about own health as the reason for biobank-participation, a monitoring coping style, a general desire for health information, perceived meaningfulness of genetic information and no anticipated anxiousness. A sizable majority of respondents showed a high information preference for individual results, even when it is unclear that treatment is available. Fewer were of the opinion that researchers should make this possible. For their communication policy biobanks should take notice of (potential) participants' high information preferences and expectations.
Copyright © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20799322     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33617

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


  47 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.  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

3.  Parents' perspectives on participating in genetic research in autism.

Authors:  Magan Trottier; Wendy Roberts; Irene Drmic; Stephen W Scherer; Rosanna Weksberg; Cheryl Cytrynbaum; David Chitayat; Cheryl Shuman; Fiona A Miller
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2013-03

4.  Preferences Regarding Return of Genomic Results to Relatives of Research Participants, Including after Participant Death: Empirical Results from a Cancer Biobank.

Authors:  Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Gloria M Petersen; Susan M Wolf; Kari G Chaffee; Marguerite E Robinson; Deborah R Gordon; Noralane M Lindor; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

5.  Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Rebecca Branum; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen; Susan A Berry; Laura M Beskow; Mary B Daly; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green; Bonnie S LeRoy; Noralane M Lindor; P Pearl O'Rourke; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mark A Rothstein; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

6.  Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.

Authors:  Carla G van El; Martina C Cornel; Pascal Borry; Ros J Hastings; Florence Fellmann; Shirley V Hodgson; Heidi C Howard; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Bartha M Knoppers; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Hans Scheffer; Lisbeth Tranebjaerg; Wybo Dondorp; Guido M W R de Wert
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 7.  Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review.

Authors:  Z Lohn; S Adam; P H Birch; J M Friedman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 8.  Population biobanks and returning individual research results: mission impossible or new directions?

Authors:  Susan E Wallace; Alastair Kent
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-06-05       Impact factor: 4.132

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.