Literature DB >> 20805700

Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing.

A A Lemke1, W A Wolf, J Hebert-Beirne, M E Smith.   

Abstract

Research assessing attitudes toward consent processes for high-throughput genomic-wide technologies and widespread sharing of data is limited. In order to develop a better understanding of stakeholder views toward these issues, this cross-sectional study assessed public and biorepository participant attitudes toward research participation and sharing of genetic research data. Forty-nine individuals participated in 6 focus groups; 28 in 3 public focus groups and 21 in 3 NUgene biorepository participant focus groups. In the public focus groups, 75% of participants were women, 75% had some college education or more, 46% were African-American and 29% were Hispanic. In the NUgene focus groups, 67% of participants were women, 95% had some college education or more, and the majority (76%) of participants was Caucasian. Five major themes were identified in the focus group data: (a) a wide spectrum of understanding of genetic research; (b) pros and cons of participation in genetic research; (c) influence of credibility and trust of the research institution; (d) concerns about sharing genetic research data and need for transparency in the Policy for Sharing of Data in National Institutes of Health-Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies; (e) a need for more information and education about genetic research. In order to increase public understanding and address potential concerns about genetic research, future efforts should be aimed at involving the public in genetic research policy development and in identifying or developing appropriate educational strategies to meet the public's needs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20805700      PMCID: PMC2951726          DOI: 10.1159/000276767

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  17 in total

1.  The National Institutes of Health announces online availability of "Points to consider when planning a genetic study that involves members of named populations".

Authors:  Judith H Greenberg
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Community engagement in genetic research: results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE project.

Authors:  Béatrice Godard; Jennifer Marshall; Claude Laberge
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2007

3.  The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes.

Authors:  Matthew D Mailman; Michael Feolo; Yumi Jin; Masato Kimura; Kimberly Tryka; Rinat Bagoutdinov; Luning Hao; Anne Kiang; Justin Paschall; Lon Phan; Natalia Popova; Stephanie Pretel; Lora Ziyabari; Moira Lee; Yu Shao; Zhen Y Wang; Karl Sirotkin; Minghong Ward; Michael Kholodov; Kerry Zbicz; Jeffrey Beck; Michael Kimelman; Sergey Shevelev; Don Preuss; Eugene Yaschenko; Alan Graeff; James Ostell; Stephen T Sherry
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 4.  Share and share alike: deciding how to distribute the scientific and social benefits of genomic data.

Authors:  Morris W Foster; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2007-07-03       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation.

Authors:  K C O'Doherty; M M Burgess
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  The Public Population Project in Genomics (P3G): a proof of concept?

Authors:  B M Knoppers; I Fortier; D Legault; P Burton
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Assessing the understanding of biobank participants.

Authors:  K E Ormond; A L Cirino; I B Helenowski; R L Chisholm; W A Wolf
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  Great expectations: views of genetic research participants regarding current and future genetic studies.

Authors:  Gail Henderson; Joanne Garrett; Jada Bussey-Jones; Mairead Eastin Moloney; Connie Blumenthal; Giselle Corbie-Smith
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Jennifer A Hamilton; Rebecca Lunstroth; Laurence B McCullough; Alica Goldman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Amy L McGuire; Mildred Cho; Janet A Buchanan; Michael M Burgess; Ursula Danilczyk; Christina M Diaz; Kelly Fryer-Edwards; Shane K Green; Marc A Hodosh; Eric T Juengst; Jane Kaye; Laurence Kedes; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Trudo Lemmens; Eric M Meslin; Juli Murphy; Robert L Nussbaum; Margaret Otlowski; Daryl Pullman; Peter N Ray; Jeremy Sugarman; Michael Timmons
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  118 in total

1.  Ethical and practical challenges of sharing data from genome-wide association studies: the eMERGE Consortium experience.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Melissa Basford; Lynn G Dressler; Stephanie M Fullerton; Barbara A Koenig; Rongling Li; Cathy A McCarty; Erin Ramos; Maureen E Smith; Carol P Somkin; Carol Waudby; Wendy A Wolf; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  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

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.  Receptiveness to participation in genetic research: A pilot study comparing views of people with depression, diabetes, or no illness.

Authors:  Laura Weiss Roberts; Jane Paik Kim
Journal:  J Psychiatr Res       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 4.791

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.  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

Review 8.  The intelligent use and clinical benefits of electronic medical records in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Mary F Davis; Jonathan L Haines
Journal:  Expert Rev Clin Immunol       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 4.473

9.  Community engagement in US biobanking: multiplicity of meaning and method.

Authors:  K M Haldeman; R J Cadigan; A Davis; A Goldenberg; G E Henderson; D Lassiter; E Reavely
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 2.000

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.