BACKGROUND: Population based genetics studies are dependent on large numbers of individuals in the pursuit of small effect sizes. Recruiting and consenting a large number of participants is both costly and time consuming. We explored whether an online consent process for large-scale genetics studies is acceptable for prospective participants using an example online genetics study. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 42 members of the public stratified by age group, gender and newspaper readership (a measure of social status). Respondents were asked to use a website designed to recruit for a large-scale genetic study. After using the website a semi-structured interview was conducted to explore opinions and any issues they would have. Responses were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: The majority of respondents said they would take part in the research (32/42). Those who said they would decline to participate saw fewer benefits from the research, wanted more information and expressed a greater number of concerns about the study. Younger respondents had concerns over time commitment. Middle aged respondents were concerned about privacy and security. Older respondents were more altruistic in their motivation to participate. Common themes included trust in the authenticity of the website, security of personal data, curiosity about their own genetic profile, operational concerns and a desire for more information about the research. CONCLUSIONS: Online consent to large-scale genetic studies is likely to be acceptable to the public. The online consent process must establish trust quickly and effectively by asserting authenticity and credentials, and provide access to a range of information to suit different information preferences.
BACKGROUND: Population based genetics studies are dependent on large numbers of individuals in the pursuit of small effect sizes. Recruiting and consenting a large number of participants is both costly and time consuming. We explored whether an online consent process for large-scale genetics studies is acceptable for prospective participants using an example online genetics study. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 42 members of the public stratified by age group, gender and newspaper readership (a measure of social status). Respondents were asked to use a website designed to recruit for a large-scale genetic study. After using the website a semi-structured interview was conducted to explore opinions and any issues they would have. Responses were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: The majority of respondents said they would take part in the research (32/42). Those who said they would decline to participate saw fewer benefits from the research, wanted more information and expressed a greater number of concerns about the study. Younger respondents had concerns over time commitment. Middle aged respondents were concerned about privacy and security. Older respondents were more altruistic in their motivation to participate. Common themes included trust in the authenticity of the website, security of personal data, curiosity about their own genetic profile, operational concerns and a desire for more information about the research. CONCLUSIONS: Online consent to large-scale genetic studies is likely to be acceptable to the public. The online consent process must establish trust quickly and effectively by asserting authenticity and credentials, and provide access to a range of information to suit different information preferences.
Authors: Deborah O Erwin; Kirsten Moysich; Marc T Kiviniemi; Frances G Saad-Harfouche; Warren Davis; Nikia Clark-Hargrave; Gregory L Ciupak; Christine B Ambrosone; Charles Walker Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Alma Husedzinovic; Dominik Ose; Christoph Schickhardt; Stefan Fröhling; Eva C Winkler Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: R Jean Cadigan; Rita Butterfield; Christine Rini; Margaret Waltz; Kristine J Kuczynski; Kristin Muessig; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail E Henderson Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Marc T Kiviniemi; Frances G Saad-Harfouche; Gregory L Ciupak; Warren Davis; Kirsten Moysich; Nikia Clark Hargrave; Christine B Ambrosone; Charles Walker; Deborah O Erwin Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Loabat Amiri; Andrea E Cassidy-Bushrow; Heather Dakki; Jia Li; Karen Wells; Susan A Oliveria; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Abraham Thomas; David E Lanfear Journal: J Investig Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Angus J Clarke; David N Cooper; Michael Krawczak; Chris Tyler-Smith; Helen M Wallace; Andrew O M Wilkie; Frances Lucy Raymond; Ruth Chadwick; Nick Craddock; Ros John; John Gallacher; Mathias Chiano Journal: Hum Genomics Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 4.639
Authors: John Gallacher; Rory Collins; Paul Elliott; Stephen Palmer; Paul Burton; Clive Mitchell; Gareth John; Ronan Lyons Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 3.240