Literature DB >> 22261752

Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: a conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions.

Daryl Pullman1, Holly Etchegary, Katherine Gallagher, Kathleen Hodgkinson, Montgomery Keough, David Morgan, Catherine Street.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the public's perception of biobank research and the relative importance they place on concerns for privacy and confidentiality, when compared with other key variables when considering participation in biobank research.
METHODS: Conjoint analysis of three key attributes (research focus, research beneficiary, and privacy and confidentiality) under conditions of either blanket or specific consent.
RESULTS: Although the majority of our participants described themselves as private individuals, they consistently ranked privacy and confidentiality as the least important of the variables they considered. The potential beneficiary of proposed research ranked the highest under conditions of both blanket and specific consent. When completing the conjoint task under conditions of blanket consent, participants tended to act more altruistically.
CONCLUSION: The public tends to view biobanks as public goods designed primarily for public benefit. As such it tends to act altruistically with respect to the potential benefits that might accrue from research using biobanked samples. Participants expressed little concern about informational risks (i.e., privacy and confidentiality) should they choose to participate. The manner in which policy priorities are framed could impact participant value preferences with regard to a number of governance issues in biobanking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22261752     DOI: 10.1038/gim.0b013e31822e578f

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


  15 in total

1.  Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) in Clinical Genetics Research.

Authors:  Daryl Pullman; Holly Etchegary
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

2.  Biobanking: The Melding of Research with Clinical Care.

Authors:  Maureen E Smith; Sharon Aufox
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2013-06

Review 3.  Stakeholders' perspectives on biobank-based genomic research: systematic review of the literature.

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

4.  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

5.  How to build an integrated biobank: the Washington University Translational Cardiovascular Biobank & Repository experience.

Authors:  Kathryn A Yamada; Akshar Y Patel; Gregory A Ewald; Donna S Whitehead; Michael K Pasque; Scott C Silvestry; Deborah L Janks; Douglas L Mann; Jeanne M Nerbonne
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 4.689

6.  Current Status and Future Challenges of Biobank Research in Malaysia.

Authors:  Latifah Amin; Angelina Olesen; Zurina Mahadi; Maznah Ibrahim
Journal:  Asian Bioeth Rev       Date:  2021-03-31

7.  Constructing populations in biobanking.

Authors:  Aaro Tupasela; Karoliina Snell; Jose A Cañada
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2015-07-21

8.  Public trust in health information sharing: implications for biobanking and electronic health record systems.

Authors:  Jodyn Platt; Sharon Kardia
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2015-02-03

9.  "Media, politics and science policy: MS and evidence from the CCSVI Trenches".

Authors:  Daryl Pullman; Amy Zarzeczny; André Picard
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  An effective multisource informed consent procedure for research and clinical practice: an observational study of patient understanding and awareness of their roles as research stakeholders in a cancer biobank.

Authors:  Silvia Cervo; Jane Rovina; Renato Talamini; Tiziana Perin; Vincenzo Canzonieri; Paolo De Paoli; Agostino Steffan
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.