Literature DB >> 23817821

Thematic analysis of cardiac care patients' explanations for declining contribution to a genomic research-based biobank.

Pamela Holtzclaw Williams1, Lynne S Nemeth, Jennifer E Sanner, Lorraine Q Frazier.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health care delivery systems increasingly ask patients to contribute biological samples for future genomic-based health research during critical care admissions, as the result of genome-based research requirements of unprecedented large sample sizes. Few reports describe patients' perceptions and responses to actual biobanking approaches in clinical settings. A qualitative study was conducted to explore 568 cardiac care patients' explanations of why they declined to contribute their samples to a future genomic research biobank.
OBJECTIVES: To (1) identify themes emerging from explanations for declining contribution to the research biobanking initiative and (2) determine how the content informs the stewardship conceptual framework that addresses evidence-based clinical ethics practices in genomic and genetic research biobanking.
METHODS: This qualitative study used an analytic method that combines inductive and deductive approaches to identify themes in patients' explanations for declining to contribute to a research biobank initiative. The hybrid design has relevance to health services research that seeks to develop taxonomy, themes, and theory.
RESULTS: Inductive approaches showed that themes of intrusion and autonomy dominated explanations. Deductive approaches affirmed previously proposed elements of a stewardship conceptual framework that addresses ethics in biobanking.
CONCLUSION: Research in understanding patients' perceptions can guide nursing and biobank practices in developing best practices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23817821      PMCID: PMC4423546          DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2013838

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Crit Care        ISSN: 1062-3264            Impact factor:   2.228


  25 in total

Review 1.  Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness.

Authors:  U H Graneheim; B Lundman
Journal:  Nurse Educ Today       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.442

2.  The qualitative content analysis process.

Authors:  Satu Elo; Helvi Kyngäs
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.187

3.  Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Bradley; Leslie A Curry; Kelly J Devers
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Evaluation of the effectiveness of posters to provide information to patients about a DNA database and their opportunity to opt out.

Authors:  Jill M Pulley; Margaret Brace; Gordon R Bernard; Dan Masys
Journal:  Cell Tissue Bank       Date:  2007-02-02       Impact factor: 1.522

5.  Vulnerable research participants: anyone may qualify.

Authors:  Gloria A Jacobson
Journal:  Nurs Sci Q       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 0.883

Review 6.  Ethical considerations in the recruitment of research subjects from hospitalized, cardiovascular patient populations.

Authors:  Nalini Jairath; Connie M Ulrich; Cathaleen Ley
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Nurs       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.083

Review 7.  Human biological materials in research: ethical issues and the role of stewardship in minimizing research risks.

Authors:  B R Jeffers
Journal:  ANS Adv Nurs Sci       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 1.824

8.  Attitudes and perceptions of patients towards methods of establishing a DNA biobank.

Authors:  Jill M Pulley; Margaret M Brace; Gordon R Bernard; Dan R Masys
Journal:  Cell Tissue Bank       Date:  2007-10-25       Impact factor: 1.522

9.  Factors that influence characteristics of genetic biobanks.

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

10.  Patients' refusal to consent to storage and use of samples in Swedish biobanks: cross sectional study.

Authors:  Linus Johnsson; Mats G Hansson; Stefan Eriksson; Gert Helgesson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-07-10
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Research participants' perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis.

Authors:  Flavio D'Abramo; Jan Schildmann; Jochen Vollmann
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 2.652

2.  «If you give them your little finger, they'll tear off your entire arm»: losing trust in biobank research.

Authors:  Lars Ursin; Borgunn Ytterhus; Erik Christensen; John-Arne Skolbekken
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2020-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.