Literature DB >> 24786355

Contrasting the ethical perspectives of biospecimen research among individuals with familial risk for hereditary cancer and biomedical researchers: implications for researcher training.

Gwendolyn P Quinn1, Alexis Koskan, Ivana Sehovic, Tuya Pal, Cathy Meade, Clement K Gwede.   

Abstract

While ethical concerns about participating in biospecimen research have been previously identified, few studies have reported the concerns among individuals with familial risk for hereditary cancer (IFRs). At the same time, biomedical researchers often lack training in discussing such concerns to potential donors. This study explores IFRs' and biomedical researchers' perceptions of ethical concerns about participating in biobanking research. In separate focus groups, IFRs and biomedical researchers participated in 90-min telephone focus groups. Focus group questions centered on knowledge about laws that protect the confidentiality of biospecimen donors, understanding of informed consent and study procedures, and preferences for being recontacted about potential incidental discovery and also study results. A total of 40 IFRs and 32 biomedical researchers participated in the focus groups. Results demonstrated discrepancies between the perceptions of IFRs and researchers. IFRs' concerns centered on health information protection; potential discrimination by insurers and employers; and preferences for being recontacted upon discovery of gene mutations or to communicate study results. Researchers perceived that participants understood laws protecting donors' privacy and (detailed study information outlined in the informed consent process), study outcomes were used to create a training tool kit to increase researchers' understanding of IFRs' concerns about biobanking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24786355      PMCID: PMC4094006          DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2013.0461

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers        ISSN: 1945-0257


  16 in total

1.  Why surgical patients do not donate tissue for commercial research: review of records.

Authors:  Alison L Jack; Christopher Womack
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-08-02

Review 2.  Ethical issues in tissue banking for research: a brief review of existing organizational policies.

Authors:  Keith Bauer; Sara Taub; Kayhan Parsi
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2004

Review 3.  Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review.

Authors:  James Flory; Ezekiel Emanuel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-10-06       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Formative research on perceptions of biobanking: what community members think.

Authors:  John S Luque; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Francisco A Montel-Ishino; Mariana Arevalo; Shalanda A Bynum; Shalewa Noel-Thomas; Kristen J Wells; Clement K Gwede; Cathy D Meade
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Qualitative analysis: what it is and how to begin.

Authors:  M Sandelowski
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 2.228

Review 6.  Ethical issues in the collection, storage, and research use of human biological materials.

Authors:  Eric M Meslin; Kimberly A Quaid
Journal:  J Lab Clin Med       Date:  2004-11

7.  Informed consent: assessment of comprehension.

Authors:  D A Wirshing; W C Wirshing; S R Marder; R P Liberman; J Mintz
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 18.112

8.  Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy.

Authors:  Dean Schillinger; John Piette; Kevin Grumbach; Frances Wang; Clifford Wilson; Carolyn Daher; Krishelle Leong-Grotz; Cesar Castro; Andrew B Bindman
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-01-13

9.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Wayne W Grody; Sarah S Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Christa L Martin; Amy L McGuire; Robert L Nussbaum; Julianne M O'Daniel; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Michael S Watson; Marc S Williams; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Interactive informed consent: randomized comparison with paper consents.

Authors:  Michael C Rowbotham; John Astin; Kaitlin Greene; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  A Web-Based Platform for Educating Researchers About Bioethics and Biobanking.

Authors:  Ivana Sehovic; Clement K Gwede; Cathy D Meade; Stephen Sodeke; Rebecca Pentz; Gwendolyn P Quinn
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States.

Authors:  Ellen W Clayton; Colin M Halverson; Nila A Sathe; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.