PURPOSE: Despite important recent work, US public attitudes toward specific biobank consent models are not well understood. Public opinion data can help shape efforts to develop ethically sound and publicly trusted mechanisms for informing and consenting prospective biobank donors. The purpose of this study was to explore public perspectives toward a range of consent models currently being used or considered for use among comprehensive US biobanks. METHODS: The study used an exploratory mixed-methods design, using focus groups and telephone surveys. Eligible participants were English-speaking residents in the catchment area of a comprehensive biobank being developed at the University of Iowa. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants in seven focus groups and 751 survey participants were recruited. Biobanks were unfamiliar to almost all study participants but were seen as valuable resources. Most focus group (63%) and survey (67%) participants preferred a prospective opt-in over an opt-out consent approach. Broad, research-unspecific consent was preferred over categorical and study-specific consent models for purposes of approving future research use. CONCLUSION: Many individuals may want to make an active and informed choice at the point of being approached for biobank participation but are prepared to consent broadly to future research use and to forego additional choices as a result.
PURPOSE: Despite important recent work, US public attitudes toward specific biobank consent models are not well understood. Public opinion data can help shape efforts to develop ethically sound and publicly trusted mechanisms for informing and consenting prospective biobank donors. The purpose of this study was to explore public perspectives toward a range of consent models currently being used or considered for use among comprehensive US biobanks. METHODS: The study used an exploratory mixed-methods design, using focus groups and telephone surveys. Eligible participants were English-speaking residents in the catchment area of a comprehensive biobank being developed at the University of Iowa. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants in seven focus groups and 751 survey participants were recruited. Biobanks were unfamiliar to almost all study participants but were seen as valuable resources. Most focus group (63%) and survey (67%) participants preferred a prospective opt-in over an opt-out consent approach. Broad, research-unspecific consent was preferred over categorical and study-specific consent models for purposes of approving future research use. CONCLUSION: Many individuals may want to make an active and informed choice at the point of being approached for biobank participation but are prepared to consent broadly to future research use and to forego additional choices as a result.
Authors: Laura M Beskow; Kristen N Linney; Rodney A Radtke; Erin L Heinzen; David B Goldstein Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Catherine A McCarty; Russell A Wilke; Philip F Giampietro; Steve D Wesbrook; Michael D Caldwell Journal: Per Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Jason I Koontz; Daniel Haithcock; Valerie Cumbea; Anthony Waldron; Kristie Stricker; Amy Hughes; Kent Nilsson; Albert Sun; Jonathan P Piccini; William E Kraus; Geoffrey S Pitt; Svati H Shah; Patrick Hranitzky Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Peter H Watson; Janet E Wilson-McManus; Rebecca O Barnes; Sara C Giesz; Adrian Png; Richard G Hegele; Jacquelyn N Brinkman; Ian R Mackenzie; David G Huntsman; Anne Junker; Blake Gilks; Erik Skarsgard; Michael Burgess; Samuel Aparicio; Bruce M McManus Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Donald J Willison; Marilyn Swinton; Lisa Schwartz; Julia Abelson; Cathy Charles; David Northrup; Ji Cheng; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2008-11-19 Impact factor: 2.652
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
Authors: S Trent Rosenbloom; Jennifer L Madison; Kyle B Brothers; Erica A Bowton; Ellen Wright Clayton; Bradley A Malin; Dan M Roden; Jill Pulley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Alexandra Smart; B Taylor Thompson; Dale M Needham; Ramona O Hopkins; Andre Williams; Ellen L Burnham; Marc Moss Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jamie L'Heureux; Jeffrey C Murray; Elizabeth Newbury; Laura Shinkunas; Christian M Simon Journal: Biopreserv Biobank Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Saskia C Sanderson; Kyle B Brothers; Nathaniel D Mercaldo; Ellen Wright Clayton; Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Sharon A Aufox; Murray H Brilliant; Diego Campos; David S Carrell; John Connolly; Pat Conway; Stephanie M Fullerton; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Carol R Horowitz; Gail P Jarvik; David Kaufman; Terrie E Kitchner; Rongling Li; Evette J Ludman; Catherine A McCarty; Jennifer B McCormick; Valerie D McManus; Melanie F Myers; Aaron Scrol; Janet L Williams; Martha J Shrubsole; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Maureen E Smith; Ingrid A Holm Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 11.025
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
Authors: John M Conley; Robert Mitchell; R Jean Cadigan; Arlene M Davis; Allison W Dobson; Ryan Q Gladden Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2012 Impact factor: 1.718