Literature DB >> 23595106

Potential bias in the bank: what distinguishes refusers, nonresponders and participants in a clinic-based biobank?

J L Ridgeway1, L C Han, J E Olson, K A Lackore, B A Koenig, T J Beebe, J Y Ziegenfuss.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biobanks are an important resource for genetic and epidemiologic research, but bias may be introduced if those who accept the recruitment invitation differ systematically from those who do not in terms of attributes important to health-related investigations. To understand potential bias in a clinic-based biobank of biological samples, including genetic data linked to electronic health record information, we compared patient characteristics and self-reported information among participants, nonresponders and refusers. We also compared reasons for nonparticipation between refusers and nonresponders to elucidate potential pathways to reduce nonparticipation and any uncovered bias.
METHODS: We mailed recruitment packets to 1,600 adult patients with upcoming appointments at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn., USA) and recorded their participation status. Administrative data were used to compare characteristics across groups. We used phone interviews with 26 nonresponders and 26 refusers to collect self-reported information, including reasons for nonparticipation. Participants were asked to complete a mailed questionnaire.
RESULTS: We achieved 26.2% participation (n=419) with 12.1% refusing (n=193) and 61.8% nonresponse (n=988). In multivariate analyses, sex, age, region of residence, and race/ethnicity were significantly associated with participation. The groups differed in information-seeking behaviors and research experience. Refusers more often cited privacy concerns, while nonresponders more often identified time constraints as the reason for nonparticipation.
CONCLUSION: For genomic medicine to advance, large, representative biobanks are required. Significant associations between patient characteristics and nonresponse, as well as systematic differences between refusers and nonresponders, could introduce bias. Oversampling or recruitment changes, including heightened attention to privacy protection and participation burden, may be necessary to increase participation among less-represented groups.
Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23595106      PMCID: PMC3821039          DOI: 10.1159/000349924

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  14 in total

1.  Biobank Recruitment: Motivations for Nonparticipation.

Authors:  Katrina A B Goddard; K Sabina Smith; Chuhe Chen; Carmit McMullen; Cheryl Johnson
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.300

2.  Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics.

Authors:  L M Beskow; W Burke; J F Merz; P A Barr; S Terry; V B Penchaszadeh; L O Gostin; M Gwinn; M J Khoury
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  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

4.  Examining the public refusal to consent to DNA biobanking: empirical data from a Swedish population-based study.

Authors:  Philippe A Melas; Louise K Sjöholm; Tord Forsner; Maigun Edhborg; Niklas Juth; Yvonne Forsell; Catharina Lavebratt
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 5.  Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents.

Authors:  Michael Jefford; Rosemary Moore
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Factors that influence characteristics of genetic biobanks.

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

7.  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

8.  Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants.

Authors:  Susan Brown Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Julie M Bares; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Consent to DNA collection in epidemiological studies: findings from the Whitehall II cohort and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.

Authors:  Susanne F Meisel; Aparna Shankar; Mika Kivimaki; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Joëlle Y Friedman; N Chantelle Hardy; Li Lin; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  19 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.  Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research.

Authors:  Altovise T Ewing; Lori A H Erby; Juli Bollinger; Eva Tetteyfio; Luisel J Ricks-Santi; David Kaufman
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.300

3.  EngageUC: Developing an Efficient and Ethical Approach to Biobanking Research at the University of California.

Authors:  Sarah B Garrett; Barbara A Koenig; Arleen Brown; Jen R Hult; Elizabeth A Boyd; Sarah Dry; Daniel Dohan
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2015-01-10       Impact factor: 4.689

4.  The HOXB13 G84E Mutation Is Associated with an Increased Risk for Prostate Cancer and Other Malignancies.

Authors:  Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Matthew Hathcock; Cecilia Yee; Linda A Okoth; Charles M Ewing; William B Isaacs; Kathleen A Cooney; Stephen N Thibodeau
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  The Mayo Clinic Biobank: a building block for individualized medicine.

Authors:  Janet E Olson; Euijung Ryu; Kiley J Johnson; Barbara A Koenig; Karen J Maschke; Jody A Morrisette; Mark Liebow; Paul Y Takahashi; Zachary S Fredericksen; Ruchi G Sharma; Kari S Anderson; Matthew A Hathcock; Jason A Carnahan; Jyotishman Pathak; Noralane M Lindor; Timothy J Beebe; Stephen N Thibodeau; James R Cerhan
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  Hospitalizations and emergency department use in Mayo Clinic Biobank participants within the employee and community health medical home.

Authors:  Paul Y Takahashi; Euijung Ryu; Janet E Olson; Kari S Anderson; Matthew A Hathcock; Lindsey R Haas; James M Naessens; Jyotishman Pathak; Suzette J Bielinski; James R Cerhan
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 7.616

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.  The Precision Medicine Nation.

Authors:  Maya Sabatello; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.683

9.  Communicating With Diverse Patients About Participating in a Biobank: A Randomized Multisite Study Comparing Electronic and Face-to-Face Informed Consent Processes.

Authors:  Christian M Simon; Kai Wang; Laura A Shinkunas; Daniel T Stein; Paul Meissner; Maureen Smith; Rebecca Pentz; David W Klein
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 1.742

10.  Why African Americans say "No": A Study of Pharmacogenomic Research Participation.

Authors:  Mohammed Nooruddin; Courtney Scherr; Paula Friedman; Ramesh Subrahmanyam; Jeff Banagan; Diana Moreno; Myurani Sathyanarayanan; Edith Nutescu; Tharani Jeyaram; Mary Harris; Honghong Zhang; Adriana Rodriguez; Mohammed Shaazuddin; Minoli Perera; Matthew Tuck
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 1.847

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.