Jennifer Klima1, Sara M Fitzgerald-Butt2, Kelly J Kelleher3, Deena J Chisolm3, R Dawn Comstock4, Amy K Ferketich5, Kim L McBride6. 1. 1] Center for Innovation in Pediatric Practice, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA [2] Present address: OhioHealth Research and Innovations Institute, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 2. Center for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 3. 1] Center for Innovation in Pediatric Practice, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA [2] Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA [3] College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 4. 1] College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA [2] Center for Injury Research and Policy, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 5. College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 6. 1] Center for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA [2] Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prior research suggests that parents undervalue long-term risks associated with their children's participation in research studies. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate parental understanding of informed consent for a pediatric biobanking study. METHODS: The study population included parents who provided consent for their child to participate in a study examining the genetic etiology of congenital cardiovascular malformations. Informed consent understanding was measured by adapting the Quality of Informed Consent assessment to our study. We evaluated possible predictors of individual Quality of Informed Consent items using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: A total of 252 individuals representing 188 families completed the study. The Quality of Informed Consent items best understood by parents included consent to participate in research, the main purpose of the study, and the possibility of no direct benefit. The items least understood by parents were those involving the indefinite storage of DNA, the possible risks of participation, and the fact that the study was not intended to treat their child's heart defect. Parent age and medical decision making by one versus both parents were frequent predictors of individual Quality of Informed Consent items. CONCLUSION: Parents overestimate personal benefit and underestimate the risks associated with their child's participation in a biobanking study.Genet Med 16 2, 141-148.
PURPOSE: Prior research suggests that parents undervalue long-term risks associated with their children's participation in research studies. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate parental understanding of informed consent for a pediatric biobanking study. METHODS: The study population included parents who provided consent for their child to participate in a study examining the genetic etiology of congenital cardiovascular malformations. Informed consent understanding was measured by adapting the Quality of Informed Consent assessment to our study. We evaluated possible predictors of individual Quality of Informed Consent items using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: A total of 252 individuals representing 188 families completed the study. The Quality of Informed Consent items best understood by parents included consent to participate in research, the main purpose of the study, and the possibility of no direct benefit. The items least understood by parents were those involving the indefinite storage of DNA, the possible risks of participation, and the fact that the study was not intended to treat their child's heart defect. Parent age and medical decision making by one versus both parents were frequent predictors of individual Quality of Informed Consent items. CONCLUSION: Parents overestimate personal benefit and underestimate the risks associated with their child's participation in a biobanking study.Genet Med 16 2, 141-148.
Authors: S M Fitzgerald-Butt; A Bodine; K M Fry; J Ash; A N Zaidi; V Garg; C A Gerhardt; K L McBride Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Sara M Fitzgerald-Butt; Jennifer Klima; Kelly Kelleher; Deena Chisolm; Kim L McBride Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Leandra K Tolusso; Kathleen Collins; Xue Zhang; Jennifer R Holle; C Alexander Valencia; Melanie F Myers Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Bettina F Drake; Katherine M Brown; Sarah Gehlert; Leslie E Wolf; Joann Seo; Hannah Perkins; Melody S Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Renate D Savich; Beth B Tigges; Lisbeth Iglesias Rios; Joanne McCloskey; Kristine Tollestrup; Robert D Annett Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2019-11-28
Authors: Paul S Appelbaum; Erik Parens; Cameron R Waldman; Robert Klitzman; Abby Fyer; Josue Martinez; W Nicholson Price; Wendy K Chung Journal: Hastings Cent Rep Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 2.683