Literature DB >> 24751688

Simple genetics language as source of miscommunication between genetics researchers and potential research participants in informed consent documents.

Justin Morgenstern1, Robert A Hegele2, Jeff Nisker3.   

Abstract

Informed consent is based on communication, requiring language to convey meanings and ensure understandings. The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of language in informed consent documents used in the genetics research funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Genome Canada. Consent documents were requested from the principal investigators in a recent round of funding. A qualitative content analysis was performed, supported by NVivo7™. Potential barriers to informed consent were identified, including language that was vague and variable, words with both technical and common meanings, novel phrases without clear meaning, a lack of definitions, and common concepts that assume new definitions in genetics research. However, we noted that difficulties in comprehension were often obscured because the words used were generally simple and familiar. We conclude that language gaps between researcher and potential research participants may unintentionally impair comprehension and ultimately impair informed consent in genomics research.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical genetics research; decision-making in science; ethics; genetic and reproductive technologies; language; public understanding; science communication

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24751688     DOI: 10.1177/0963662514528439

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Underst Sci        ISSN: 0963-6625


  5 in total

1.  Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Barbara A Bernhardt; Myra I Roche; Denise L Perry; Sarah R Scollon; Ashley N Tomlinson; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 2.802

2.  Education and Consent for Population-Based DNA Screening: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Early Check Newborn Screening Pilot Study.

Authors:  Holly L Peay; Angela You Gwaltney; Rebecca Moultrie; Heidi Cope; Beth Lincoln- Boyea; Katherine Ackerman Porter; Martin Duparc; Amir A Alexander; Barbara B Biesecker; Aminah Isiaq; Jennifer Check; Lisa Gehtland; Donald B Bailey; Nancy M P King
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Ethics of genetic testing and research in sport: a position statement from the Australian Institute of Sport.

Authors:  Nicole Vlahovich; Peter A Fricker; Matthew A Brown; David Hughes
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 13.800

4.  Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network.

Authors:  John A Lynch; Richard R Sharp; Sharon A Aufox; Sarah T Bland; Carrie Blout; Deborah J Bowen; Adam H Buchanan; Colin Halverson; Margaret Harr; Scott J Hebbring; Nora Henrikson; Christin Hoell; Ingrid A Holm; Gail Jarvik; Iftikhar J Kullo; David C Kochan; Eric B Larson; Amanda Lazzeri; Kathleen A Leppig; Jill Madden; Maddalena Marasa; Melanie F Myers; Josh Peterson; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; James Ralston; Hila Milo Rasouly; Aaron Scrol; Maureen E Smith; Amy Sturm; Kelsey Stuttgen; Georgia Wiesner; Marc S Williams; Julia Wynn; Janet L Williams
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-05-13

5.  "Here comes Bio-me": An analysis of a biobank campaign targeted at children.

Authors:  Karoliina Snell; Heta Tarkkala
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2021-06-19
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.