Literature DB >> 22065592

Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank.

Kyle B Brothers1, Daniel R Morrison, Ellen W Clayton.   

Abstract

Although US research regulations allow for de-identified biorepositories to be developed without formal informed consent from the patients whose samples are included, it is unknown whether this model will be well-received by community members. Based on early evidence that such a biobank could be successful if patients who object have the opportunity to opt-out, Vanderbilt University developed a biorepository named BioVU that follows this model. This study reports the findings from two large-scale surveys among communities important to this biorepository. In the first, a population-based phone survey of Nashville residents, we found that approval for BioVU is high (93.9%) and that this approval is similar among all population groups. A hypothetical biobank that does not obtain some form of written permission is much less well received. In the second, an online survey of Vanderbilt University faculty and staff, we found a higher level of support for BioVU (94.5%) among faculty and staff working throughout the university. In this survey, employees least likely to approve of BioVU are those employees who prefer not to receive medical care at Vanderbilt University. These surveys demonstrate the highest level of approval for a genomic biobank ever reported in the literature, even among groups traditionally cautious about such research. This high level of approval may reflect increasing comfort with genomic research over time combined with the effect that trust in a specific institution can have on approval for an operating biobank compared with approval of a hypothetical biobank.
Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22065592      PMCID: PMC3222722          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34304

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


  10 in total

1.  Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research.

Authors:  Klaus Hoeyer; Bert-Ove Olofsson; Tom Mjörndal; Niels Lynöe
Journal:  Scand J Public Health       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine.

Authors:  D M Roden; J M Pulley; M A Basford; G R Bernard; E W Clayton; J R Balser; D R Masys
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 6.875

3.  Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think?

Authors:  Asa Kettis-Lindblad; Lena Ring; Eva Viberth; Mats G Hansson
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 3.367

4.  Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out, de-identified biobank.

Authors:  Jill Pulley; Ellen Clayton; Gordon R Bernard; Dan M Roden; Daniel R Masys
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.689

5.  Empirical data about women's attitudes towards a hypothetical pediatric biobank.

Authors:  Alon B Neidich; Josh W Joseph; Carole Ober; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Attitudes and perceptions of patients towards methods of establishing a DNA biobank.

Authors:  Jill M Pulley; Margaret M Brace; Gordon R Bernard; Dan R Masys
Journal:  Cell Tissue Bank       Date:  2007-10-25       Impact factor: 1.522

7.  Factors that influence characteristics of genetic biobanks.

Authors:  Jennifer E Sanner; Lorraine Frazier
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.176

8.  Participant characteristics that influence consent for genetic research in a population-based survey: the Baltimore epidemiologic catchment area follow-up.

Authors:  Briana Mezuk; William W Eaton; Peter Zandi
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2008-03-26

9.  Research on stored biological samples: views of African American and White American cancer patients.

Authors:  Rebecca D Pentz; Laurent Billot; David Wendler
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-04-01       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  Great expectations: views of genetic research participants regarding current and future genetic studies.

Authors:  Gail Henderson; Joanne Garrett; Jada Bussey-Jones; Mairead Eastin Moloney; Connie Blumenthal; Giselle Corbie-Smith
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.822

  10 in total
  35 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Proposed regulations for research with biospecimens: responses from stakeholders at CTSA consortium institutions.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin; Rebecca Anderson; Tom Murray; Laura M Beskow; Karen Maschke; Leona Cuttler
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  Surrogate receptivity to participation in critical illness genetic research: aligning research oversight and stakeholder concerns.

Authors:  Bradley D Freeman; Kevin Butler; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Brian R Clarridge; Carie R Kennedy; Jessica LeBlanc; Sara Chandros Hull
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  Perspectives of Decisional Surrogates and Patients Regarding Critical Illness Genetic Research.

Authors:  Bradley D Freeman; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Carie R Kennedy; Jessica LeBlanc; Alexander Eastman; Jennifer Barillas; Catherine M Wittgen; Kathryn Indsey; Rumel S Mahmood; Brian R Clarridge
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2015-05-01

7.  Patient awareness and approval for an opt-out genomic biorepository.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; Mathew J Westbrook; M Frances Wright; John A Myers; Daniel R Morrison; Jennifer L Madison; Jill M Pulley; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.512

8.  Development and validation of the biobanking attitudes and knowledge survey (BANKS).

Authors:  Kristen J Wells; Mariana Arevalo; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede; Gwendolyn P Quinn; John S Luque; Gloria San Miguel; Dale Watson; Rebecca Phillips; Carmen Reyes; Margarita Romo; Jim West; Paul B Jacobsen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  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

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.