PURPOSE: Despite growing concerns toward maintaining participants' privacy, individual investigators collecting tissue and other biological specimens for genomic analysis are encouraged to obtain informed consent for broad data sharing. Our purpose was to assess the effect on research enrollment and data sharing decisions of three different consent types (traditional, binary, or tiered) with varying levels of control and choices regarding data sharing. METHODS: A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 323 eligible adult participants being recruited into one of six genome studies at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, between January 2008 and August 2009. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental consent documents (traditional, n = 110; binary, n = 103; and tiered, n = 110). Debriefing in follow-up visits provided participants a detailed review of all consent types and the chance to change data sharing choices or decline genome study participation. RESULTS: Before debriefing, 83.9% of participants chose public data release. After debriefing, 53.1% chose public data release, 33.1% chose restricted (controlled access database) release, and 13.7% opted out of data sharing. Only one participant declined genome study participation due to data sharing concerns. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that most participants are willing to publicly release their genomic data; however, a significant portion prefers restricted release. These results suggest discordance between existing data sharing policies and participants' judgments and desires.
PURPOSE: Despite growing concerns toward maintaining participants' privacy, individual investigators collecting tissue and other biological specimens for genomic analysis are encouraged to obtain informed consent for broad data sharing. Our purpose was to assess the effect on research enrollment and data sharing decisions of three different consent types (traditional, binary, or tiered) with varying levels of control and choices regarding data sharing. METHODS: A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 323 eligible adult participants being recruited into one of six genome studies at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, between January 2008 and August 2009. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental consent documents (traditional, n = 110; binary, n = 103; and tiered, n = 110). Debriefing in follow-up visits provided participants a detailed review of all consent types and the chance to change data sharing choices or decline genome study participation. RESULTS: Before debriefing, 83.9% of participants chose public data release. After debriefing, 53.1% chose public data release, 33.1% chose restricted (controlled access database) release, and 13.7% opted out of data sharing. Only one participant declined genome study participation due to data sharing concerns. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that most participants are willing to publicly release their genomic data; however, a significant portion prefers restricted release. These results suggest discordance between existing data sharing policies and participants' judgments and desires.
Authors: Sara Chandros Hull; Richard R Sharp; Jeffrey R Botkin; Mark Brown; Mark Hughes; Jeremy Sugarman; Debra Schwinn; Pamela Sankar; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Brian R Clarridge; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: Am J Bioeth Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 11.229
Authors: Amy L McGuire; Jennifer A Hamilton; Rebecca Lunstroth; Laurence B McCullough; Alica Goldman Journal: Genet Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Nils Homer; Szabolcs Szelinger; Margot Redman; David Duggan; Waibhav Tembe; Jill Muehling; John V Pearson; Dietrich A Stephan; Stanley F Nelson; David W Craig Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2008-08-29 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: J M Oliver; M J Slashinski; T Wang; P A Kelly; S G Hilsenbeck; A L McGuire Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Matthew D Burstein; Jill Oliver Robinson; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Amy L McGuire; Ching C Lau Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Shuang Wang; Luca Bonomi; Wenrui Dai; Feng Chen; Cynthia Cheung; Cinnamon S Bloss; Samuel Cheng; Xiaoqian Jiang Journal: IEEE Trans Big Data Date: 2016-09-13
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: Muhammad Naveed; Erman Ayday; Ellen W Clayton; Jacques Fellay; Carl A Gunter; Jean-Pierre Hubaux; Bradley A Malin; Xiaofeng Wang Journal: ACM Comput Surv Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 10.282