Literature DB >> 23256702

Why do participants enroll in population biobank studies? A systematic literature review.

Hélène Nobile1, Eric Vermeulen, Kristof Thys, Manuela M Bergmann, Pascal Borry.   

Abstract

Therapeutic misconception has been extensively studied and addressed within clinical trials. An equivalent in the genetic research context has been identified as diagnostic misconception. There is not much data on this phenomenon in population-based biobank studies. Since misconceptions may generate undue motives to enroll, the authors aimed at reviewing studies addressing the reasons to participate in biobank studies. The main databases were searched using relevant keywords. Studies were included if peer-reviewed, in English and describing the reasons to enroll was provided by actual and apparently healthy donors. Although the 13 studies retrieved were heterogeneous, a scheme summarizing the main aspects involved in the decision-making process was developed. Expectation of personal benefit through health-related information was found in eight studies. Three of them discussed whether this expectation could be considered a form of therapeutic misconception. The magnitude of this phenomenon is an important ethical concern and ought to be further studied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23256702     DOI: 10.1586/erm.12.116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn        ISSN: 1473-7159            Impact factor:   5.225


  26 in total

1.  Factors associated with willingness to provide biospecimens for genetics research among African American cancer survivors.

Authors:  Altovise T Ewing; Nnenna Kalu; Gloria Cain; Lori H Erby; Luisel J Ricks-Santi; Eva Tetteyfio-Kidd Telemaque; Denise M Scott
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-03-14

2.  Community Perceptions of Biobanking Participation: A Qualitative Study among Mexican-Americans in Three Texas Cities.

Authors:  Natalia I Heredia; Sarah Krasny; Larkin L Strong; Laura Von Hatten; Lynne Nguyen; Belinda M Reininger; Lorna H McNeill; María E Fernández
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  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

4.  Online Education and e-Consent for GeneScreen, a Preventive Genomic Screening Study.

Authors:  R Jean Cadigan; Rita Butterfield; Christine Rini; Margaret Waltz; Kristine J Kuczynski; Kristin Muessig; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail E Henderson
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  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

6.  Incidental variants are critical for genomics.

Authors:  Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Broad consent in practice: lessons learned from a hospital-based biobank for prospective research on genomic and medical data.

Authors:  Gaia Barazzetti; Francesca Bosisio; Daria Koutaissoff; Brenda Spencer
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  Stakeholder Perspectives on Returning Nonactionable Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) Genetic Results to African American Research Participants.

Authors:  Kathleen M West; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Erika Blacksher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Ebele M Umeukeje; Bessie Young; Wylie Burke
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 1.978

9.  Giving samples or "getting checked": measuring conflation of observational biospecimen research and clinical care in Latino communities.

Authors:  Sarah Knerr; Rachel M Ceballos
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Future of biobanks - bigger, longer, and more dimensional.

Authors:  Ozren Polasek
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 1.351

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.