Literature DB >> 22573882

Attitudes of African-American parents about biobank participation and return of results for themselves and their children.

Colin M E Halverson1, Lainie Friedman Ross.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Biobank-based research is growing in importance. A major controversy exists about the return of aggregate and individual research results.
METHODS: The authors used a mixed-method approach in order to study parents' attitudes towards the return of research results regarding themselves and their children. Participants attended four 2-h, deliberative-engagement sessions held on two consecutive Saturdays. Each session consisted of an educational presentation followed by focus-group discussions with structured questions and prompts. This manuscript examines discussions from the second Saturday which focused on the benefits and risks of returning aggregate and individual research results regarding both adults (morning session) and children (afternoon session). Attitudes were assessed in pre-engagement and post-engagement surveys.
RESULTS: The authors recruited 45 African-American adults whose children received medical care at two healthcare facilities on the South Side of Chicago that serve different socioeconomic communities. Three dominant themes were identified. First, most participants stated that they would enrol themselves and their children in a biobank, although there was a vocal minority opposed to enrolling children, particularly children unable to participate in the consent process. Second, participants did not distinguish between the results they wanted to receive regarding themselves and their children. Supplemental survey data found no attitudinal changes pre-engagement and post-engagement. Third, participants believed that children should be allowed access to their health information, but they wanted to be involved in deciding when and how the information was shared. DISCUSSION: Participant attitudes are in tension with current biobank policies. An intensive educational effort had no effect on their attitudes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22573882      PMCID: PMC4260924          DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100600

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  37 in total

1.  Comparisons of adolescent and parent willingness to participate in minimal and above-minimal risk pediatric asthma research protocols.

Authors:  Janet L Brody; Robert D Annett; David G Scherer; Mandy L Perryman; Keely M W Cofrin
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.012

Review 2.  Genetic research on stored tissue samples from minors: a systematic review of the ethical literature.

Authors:  Kristien Hens; Herman Nys; Jean-Jacques Cassiman; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Research ethics. Children and population biobanks.

Authors:  David Gurwitz; Isabel Fortier; Jeantine E Lunshof; Bartha Maria Knoppers
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Parent and adolescent perceived need for parental consent involving research with minors.

Authors:  A Sikand; H Schubiner; P M Simpson
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  1997-06

5.  Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: a focus group study.

Authors:  Samantha A Streicher; Saskia C Sanderson; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Michael Diefenbach; Meg Smirnoff; Inga Peter; Carol R Horowitz; Barbara Brenner; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-06-07

6.  The genetic testing of children. Working Party of the Clinical Genetics Society (UK)

Authors:  A Clarke
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 6.318

7.  Research ethics. Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf.

Authors:  S B Trinidad; S M Fullerton; E J Ludman; G P Jarvik; E B Larson; W Burke
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-01-21       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Communication of biobanks' research results: what do (potential) participants want?

Authors:  Tineke M Meulenkamp; Sjef K Gevers; Jasper A Bovenberg; Gerard H Koppelman; Astrid van Hylckama Vlieg; Ellen M A Smets
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.802

9.  Pediatric biobanks: approaching informed consent for continuing research after children grow up.

Authors:  Aaron J Goldenberg; Sara Chandros Hull; Jeffrey R Botkin; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 4.406

10.  Secular trends in long-term sustained hypertension, long-term treatment, and cardiovascular mortality. The Framingham Heart Study 1950 to 1990.

Authors:  P A Sytkowski; R B D'Agostino; A J Belanger; W B Kannel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1996-02-15       Impact factor: 29.690

View more
  17 in total

1.  Returning Results: Let's Be Honest!

Authors:  Bernice S Elger; Eva De Clercq
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-02-24

2.  Canadian Research Ethics Board Leadership Attitudes to the Return of Genetic Research Results to Individuals and Their Families.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

3.  How Much Control Do Children and Adolescents Have over Genomic Testing, Parental Access to Their Results, and Parental Communication of Those Results to Others?

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Genetic research participation in a young adult community sample.

Authors:  Carla L Storr; Flora Or; William W Eaton; Nicholas Ialongo
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-06-20

5.  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

6.  Development and Validation of the Biomedical Research Trust Scale (BRTS) in English and Spanish.

Authors:  Sharon H Baik; Mariana Arevalo; Clement Gwede; Cathy D Meade; Paul B Jacobsen; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Kristen J Wells
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: a structured interview study.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Michael A Diefenbach; Randi Zinberg; Carol R Horowitz; Margaret Smirnoff; Micol Zweig; Samantha Streicher; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-06-22

8.  Perceptions regarding genetic testing in populations at risk for nephropathy.

Authors:  Barry I Freedman; Alison J Fletcher; Vivek R Sanghani; Mitzie Spainhour; Angelina W Graham; Gregory B Russell; Jessica N Cooke Bailey; Ana S Iltis; Nancy M P King
Journal:  Am J Nephrol       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 3.754

9.  Implications of the incidentalome for clinical pharmacogenomics.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; Martin Langanke; Pia Erdmann
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.533

10.  Barriers and Strategies to Participation in Tissue Research Among African-American Men.

Authors:  Bettina F Drake; Danielle Boyd; Kimberly Carter; Sarah Gehlert; Vetta Sanders Thompson
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.037

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.