Literature DB >> 24916145

'Cool! and creepy': engaging with college student stakeholders in Michigan's biobank.

Tevah Platt1, Jodyn Platt, Daniel B Thiel, Nicole Fisher, Sharon L R Kardia.   

Abstract

Large population biobanks, important resources for genomic research, also present ethical challenges. The Michigan BioTrust for Health makes dried bloodspots (DBS) leftover from newborn screening, including ~4.5 million collected before 2010 without written consent, available for health research. Absent prospectively gathered consent and/or current engagement with 18- to 29-year olds, little is known about opinions and beliefs from this age group about use of the bloodspots for research. We engaged 2,101 students-BioTrust participants and their peers-at information booths at 20 college campuses across the state to educate youth about the BioTrust and gather information about consent preferences and about hopes and concerns about this public health program. We surveyed student stakeholder DBS research consent preferences and fielded a "postengagement" survey to gauge the attitudes of participants and to evaluate the campus engagement. The most prevalent themes in open-ended comments were support for biobank research and concern that Michiganders are not aware of their participation. While 78 % of students said they would, if asked, opt in to the BioTrust, half of these preferred to be contacted each time a researcher sought to use their DBS. Students reported great interest in the topic and strong likelihood to share what they had learned. BioTrust participants are interested in learning about their role in an initiative whose goals they widely support. Public engagement is particularly important to biobank participants who, absent traditional consent practices, are unaware of their participation. Health-fair style engagements were effective for targeting college-aged stakeholders, communicating complex messages, and likely increasing knowledge. Retrospective biobanks and biobanks that collect proxy consent need policies to respect those who would opt out and will need resources to educate participants and conduct community outreach that is a safeguard to public trust.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 24916145      PMCID: PMC4159476          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-014-0190-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  32 in total

1.  Justifying a principle of informed consent: a case study in autonomy-based ethics.

Authors:  Martin Gunderson
Journal:  Public Aff Q       Date:  1990-07

2.  The value of using top-down and bottom-up approaches for building trust and transparency in biobanking.

Authors:  Eric M Meslin
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Informed consent and biobanks.

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Technological paternalism: on how medicine has reformed ethics and how technology can refine moral theory.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  "Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose.

Authors:  Carlo Petrini
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Newborn screening: a spot of trouble.

Authors:  Mary Carmichael
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks.

Authors:  Kieran C O'Doherty; Michael M Burgess; Kelly Edwards; Richard P Gallagher; Alice K Hawkins; Jane Kaye; Veronica McCaffrey; David E Winickoff
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2011-07-02       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 8.  From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research.

Authors:  Jane Kaye; Liam Curren; Nick Anderson; Kelly Edwards; Stephanie M Fullerton; Nadja Kanellopoulou; David Lund; Daniel G MacArthur; Deborah Mascalzoni; James Shepherd; Patrick L Taylor; Sharon F Terry; Stefan F Winter
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 53.242

9.  Meeting the governance challenges of next-generation biorepository research.

Authors:  Stephanie M Fullerton; Nicholas R Anderson; Greg Guzauskas; Dena Freeman; Kelly Fryer-Edwards
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 17.956

10.  Community perspectives on public health biobanking: an analysis of community meetings on the Michigan BioTrust for Health.

Authors:  Daniel B Thiel; Tevah Platt; Jodyn Platt; Susan B King; Sharon L R Kardia
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-07-27
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Coordination of the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes program: so the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Authors:  Brian Smith; Susan Knox; Daniel K Benjamin
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.856

2.  Engaging a state: Facebook comments on a large population biobank.

Authors:  Tevah Platt; Jodyn Platt; Daniel Thiel; Sharon L R Kardia
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-04-05

3.  Differences in preferences for models of consent for biobanks between Black and White women.

Authors:  Katherine M Brown; Bettina F Drake; Sarah Gehlert; Leslie E Wolf; James DuBois; Joann Seo; Krista Woodward; Hannah Perkins; Melody S Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-08-25

4.  Public trust in health information sharing: implications for biobanking and electronic health record systems.

Authors:  Jodyn Platt; Sharon Kardia
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2015-02-03

5.  Assessment of knowledge about biobanking among healthcare students and their willingness to donate biospecimens.

Authors:  Leena Merdad; Lama Aldakhil; Rawan Gadi; Mourad Assidi; Salina Y Saddick; Adel Abuzenadah; Jim Vaught; Abdelbaset Buhmeida; Mohammed H Al-Qahtani
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States.

Authors:  Nanibaa' A Garrison; Nila A Sathe; Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Ingrid A Holm; Saskia C Sanderson; Maureen E Smith; Melissa L McPheeters; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 8.822

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.