Jodyn Platt1, Juli Bollinger2, Rachel Dvoskin2, Sharon L R Kardia3, David Kaufman2. 1. 1] Life Sciences and Society Program, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA [2] Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Genetics and Public Policy Center, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA. 3. 1] Life Sciences and Society Program, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA [2] Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Some large population biobanks that house biospecimens and health information for research seek broad consent from participants, whereas others reconsent for specific new studies. Understanding research participants' attitudes and preferences about broad and narrow consent may improve recruitment, retention, and public support. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of 4,659 US adults to examine relationships between consent preferences and demographic factors, beliefs about privacy and the value of research, and the perceived trustworthiness of researchers. RESULTS: Participants preferred broad consent (52%) over study-by-study consent models (48%). Higher preferences for study-by-study consent observed among black non-Hispanic respondents and respondents with lower income and education were explained by differences in the prevalence of one or more beliefs about the study. Respondents with fears about research and those who would feel respected if asked for permission for each research use preferred study-by-study consent. Preference for broad consent was related to the desire not to be bothered with multiple requests and the belief that the study could lead to improved treatments, cures, and lives saved. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that support for broad consent is contingent on sufficient information about data use. Work with research participants and community leaders to understand, respond to, and influence opinions about a given, ongoing study may improve uptake of broad consent.
PURPOSE: Some large population biobanks that house biospecimens and health information for research seek broad consent from participants, whereas others reconsent for specific new studies. Understanding research participants' attitudes and preferences about broad and narrow consent may improve recruitment, retention, and public support. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of 4,659 US adults to examine relationships between consent preferences and demographic factors, beliefs about privacy and the value of research, and the perceived trustworthiness of researchers. RESULTS: Participants preferred broad consent (52%) over study-by-study consent models (48%). Higher preferences for study-by-study consent observed among black non-Hispanic respondents and respondents with lower income and education were explained by differences in the prevalence of one or more beliefs about the study. Respondents with fears about research and those who would feel respected if asked for permission for each research use preferred study-by-study consent. Preference for broad consent was related to the desire not to be bothered with multiple requests and the belief that the study could lead to improved treatments, cures, and lives saved. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that support for broad consent is contingent on sufficient information about data use. Work with research participants and community leaders to understand, respond to, and influence opinions about a given, ongoing study may improve uptake of broad consent.
Authors: Martin Yuille; Gert-Jan van Ommen; Christian Bréchot; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Georges Dagher; Ulf Landegren; Jan-Eric Litton; Markus Pasterk; Leena Peltonen; Mike Taussig; H-Erich Wichmann; Kurt Zatloukal Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2007-10-23 Impact factor: 11.622
Authors: Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; David Kaufman; Gail Geller; Lisa LeRoy; Kathy Hudson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Timothy Caulfield; Amy L McGuire; Mildred Cho; Janet A Buchanan; Michael M Burgess; Ursula Danilczyk; Christina M Diaz; Kelly Fryer-Edwards; Shane K Green; Marc A Hodosh; Eric T Juengst; Jane Kaye; Laurence Kedes; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Trudo Lemmens; Eric M Meslin; Juli Murphy; Robert L Nussbaum; Margaret Otlowski; Daryl Pullman; Peter N Ray; Jeremy Sugarman; Michael Timmons Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 8.029
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
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
Authors: Amanda L Bergner; Juli Bollinger; Karen S Raraigh; Crystal Tichnell; Brittney Murray; Carrie Lynn Blout; Aida Bytyci Telegrafi; Cynthia A James Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 2.802
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
Authors: Susan W Groth; Ann Dozier; Margaret Demment; Dongmei Li; I Diana Fernandez; Jack Chang; Timothy Dye Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 2.000