Literature DB >> 21572889

Study newsletters, community and ethics advisory boards, and focus group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank.

Catherine A McCarty1, Ann Garber, Jonathan C Reeser, Norman C Fost.   

Abstract

The Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP) is a population-based biobank with more than 20,000 adult participants in central Wisconsin. A Community Advisory Group (CAG) and Ethics and Security Advisory Board (ESAB) provide ongoing feedback. In addition, the study newsletter is used as a two-way communication tool with study participants. The aim of this study was to assess and compare feedback received from these communication/consultation strategies with results from focus group discussions in relation to protocol changes. In summer 2009, enrollee focus groups were held addressing these topics: newsletter format, readability, and content of three articles written to solicit PMRP subject feedback. The CAG and ESAB jointly reviewed focus group results, discussed protocol changes to access residual blood samples, and made recommendations about the general communication approach. Nearly everyone in three focus groups stated that they wanted more information about PMRP. No focus group participant said that accessing stored samples would have changed their enrollment decision. Most said they wanted to be informed directly about changes affecting their original consent. For minimal-risk PMRP protocol changes, the community, CAG, and ESAB were comfortable with an opt-out model because of the initial broad consent. The planned duration of the biobank extends for decades; therefore regular, ongoing communication to enrollees is necessary to maintain awareness and trust, especially relating to protocol changes reflecting evolving science. The multi-faceted approach to communication including newsletters, external advisory boards, and focus group discussions has been successful for the PMRP biobank and may be a model for others to consider.
Copyright © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biobank; Community engagement; Ethics; Focus groups; Newsletters

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21572889      PMCID: PMC3092645          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33896

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-08-07       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Monitoring ethical, legal, and social issues in developing population genetic databases.

Authors:  Melissa A Austin; Sarah E Harding; Courtney E McElroy
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 8.822

3.  Community engagement and informed consent in the International HapMap project.

Authors:  Charles Rotimi; Mark Leppert; Ichiro Matsuda; Changqing Zeng; Houcan Zhang; Clement Adebamowo; Ike Ajayi; Toyin Aniagwu; Missy Dixon; Yoshimitsu Fukushima; Darryl Macer; Patricia Marshall; Chibuzor Nkwodimmah; Andy Peiffer; Charmaine Royal; Eiko Suda; Hui Zhao; Vivian Ota Wang; Jean McEwen
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2007

4.  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

5.  Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Anuradha Nair; Diane M Austin; Philip F Giampietro
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2007

6.  Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli Murphy-Bollinger; Joan Scott; Kathy L Hudson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Beyond "misunderstanding": written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Richard E Ashcroft; Clare J Jackson; Martin D Tobin; Joelle Kivits; Paul R Burton; Nilesh J Samani
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2007-09-29       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants' understanding and opinions.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Elizabeth Dean
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Community consultation and communication for a population-based DNA biobank: the Marshfield clinic personalized medicine research project.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Donna Chapman-Stone; Teresa Derfus; Philip F Giampietro; Norman Fost
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 2.802

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
  23 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

Review 2.  Unravelling the human genome-phenome relationship using phenome-wide association studies.

Authors:  William S Bush; Matthew T Oetjens; Dana C Crawford
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  Beyond Consent: Building Trusting Relationships With Diverse Populations in Precision Medicine Research.

Authors:  Stephanie A Kraft; Mildred K Cho; Katherine Gillespie; Meghan Halley; Nina Varsava; Kelly E Ormond; Harold S Luft; Benjamin S Wilfond; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  Stewardship practices of U.S. biobanks.

Authors:  Gail E Henderson; Teresa P Edwards; R Jean Cadigan; Arlene M Davis; Catherine Zimmer; Ian Conlon; Bryan J Weiner
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 17.956

5.  The MICHR Genomic DNA BioLibrary: An Empirical Study of the Ethics of Biorepository Development.

Authors:  Blake J Roessler; Nicholas H Steneck; Lisa Connally
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Perceptions of Study Newsletters for Older Cancer Patients in Longitudinal Studies.

Authors:  Mustafa Mohamedali; Joanna Sandoval; Vikarnan Thiruvarooran; Holly Stacey; Meagan O'Neill; Henriette Breunis; Narhari Timilshina; Sara Durbano; Shabbir M H Alibhai
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 7.  Biobanks and personalized medicine.

Authors:  J E Olson; S J Bielinski; E Ryu; E M Winkler; P Y Takahashi; J Pathak; J R Cerhan
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 4.438

8.  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

9.  Allocation of Resources to Communication of Research Result Summaries.

Authors:  Julie E Richards; Emmi Bane; Stephanie M Fullerton; Evette J Ludman; Gail Jarvik
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 1.742

10.  A comparison of views regarding the use of de-identified data.

Authors:  Deborah Goodman; Catherine O Johnson; Deborah Bowen; Megan Smith; Lari Wenzel; Karen L Edwards
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.