Literature DB >> 21555942

Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models.

Christian M Simon1, Jamie L'heureux, Jeffrey C Murray, Patricia Winokur, George Weiner, Elizabeth Newbury, Laura Shinkunas, Bridget Zimmerman.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21555942      PMCID: PMC3658114          DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821d2f88

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


  31 in total

1.  Ethical challenges in genotype-driven research recruitment.

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

2.  Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework.

Authors:  Bernice S Elger; Arthur L Caplan
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 8.807

3.  Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP): design, methods and recruitment for a large population-based biobank.

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

4.  Donors perceptions of consent to and feedback from biobank research: time to acknowledge diversity?

Authors:  K Hoeyer
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-11-26       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups.

Authors:  J Kitzinger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-07-29

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

Authors:  A A Lemke; W A Wolf; J Hebert-Beirne; M E Smith
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks.

Authors:  A Cambon-Thomsen; E Rial-Sebbag; B M Knoppers
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 16.671

8.  Rationale and design of the Duke Electrophysiology Genetic and Genomic Studies (EPGEN) biorepository.

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

9.  Evolutionary concepts in biobanking - the BC BioLibrary.

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

10.  Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: insights from a public dialogue.

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

View more
  71 in total

1.  Personal medicine--the new banking crisis.

Authors:  Christopher Thomas Scott; Timothy Caulfield; Emily Borgelt; Judy Illes
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  Parental Views on Expanded Newborn Screening Using Whole-Genome Sequencing.

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

3.  Ethical and practical challenges to studying patients who opt out of large-scale biorepository research.

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

4.  Surrogate consent for genetic testing, the reconsent process, and consent for long-term outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome trials.

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

5.  Public perspectives on biospecimen procurement: what biorepositories should consider.

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

6.  Public Attitudes toward Consent and Data Sharing in Biobank Research: A Large Multi-site Experimental Survey in the US.

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

7.  Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

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

Review 8.  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

9.  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

10.  A trade secret model for genomic biobanking.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.