Literature DB >> 25597748

Communicating with biobank participants: preferences for receiving and providing updates to researchers.

Jessica L Mester1, MaryBeth Mercer2, Aaron Goldenberg3, Rebekah A Moore4, Charis Eng5, Richard R Sharp6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research biobanks collect biologic samples and health information. Previous work shows that biobank participants desire general study updates, but preferences about the method or frequency of these communications have not been explored. Thus, we surveyed participants in a long-standing research biobank.
METHODS: Eligible participants were drawn from a study of patients with personal/family history suggestive of Cowden syndrome, a poorly recognized inherited cancer syndrome. Participants gave blood samples and access to medical records and received individual results but had no other study interactions. The biobank had 3,618 participants at sampling. Survey eligibility included age ≥18 years, enrollment within the biobank's first 5 years, normal PTEN analysis, and contiguous U.S. address. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified predictors of participant interest in Internet-based versus offline methods and methods allowing participant-researcher interaction versus one-way communication. Independent variables were narrowed by independent Pearson correlations by cutoff P < 0.2, with P < 0.02 considered significant.
RESULTS: Surveys were returned from 840 of 1,267 (66%) eligible subjects. Most (97%) wanted study updates, with 92% wanting updates at least once a year. Participants preferred paper (66%) or emailed (62%) newsletter methods, with 95% selecting one of these. Older, less-educated, and lower-income respondents strongly preferred offline approaches (P < 0.001). Most (93%) had no concerns about receiving updates and 97% were willing to provide health updates to researchers.
CONCLUSION: Most participants were comfortable receiving and providing updated information. Demographic factors predicted communication preferences. IMPACT: Researchers should make plans for ongoing communication early in study development and funders should support the necessary infrastructure for these efforts. ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25597748      PMCID: PMC4383666          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1375

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  14 in total

1.  Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility.

Authors:  Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking.

Authors:  Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; David Kaufman; Gail Geller; Lisa LeRoy; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Study newsletters, community and ethics advisory boards, and focus group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Ann Garber; Jonathan C Reeser; Norman C Fost
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group.

Authors:  Ebony B Bookman; Aleisha A Langehorne; John H Eckfeldt; Kathleen C Glass; Gail P Jarvik; Michael Klag; Greg Koski; Arno Motulsky; Benjamin Wilfond; Teri A Manolio; Richard R Fabsitz; Russell V Luepker
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  A clinical scoring system for selection of patients for PTEN mutation testing is proposed on the basis of a prospective study of 3042 probands.

Authors:  Min-Han Tan; Jessica Mester; Charissa Peterson; Yiran Yang; Jin-Lian Chen; Lisa A Rybicki; Kresimira Milas; Holly Pederson; Berna Remzi; Mohammed S Orloff; Charis Eng
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group.

Authors:  Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2010-12

8.  Progress of a Comprehensive Familial Cancer Genetic Counseling Program in the Era of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Authors:  Ellen M Hartenbach; Joanne M Becker; Elizabeth A Grosen; Howard H Bailey; Daniel G Petereit; Renata Laxova; Julian C Schink
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2002

9.  Assessing the understanding of biobank participants.

Authors:  K E Ormond; A L Cirino; I B Helenowski; R L Chisholm; W A Wolf
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  What motivates interest in attending a familial cancer genetics clinic?

Authors:  L Fraser; S Bramald; C Chapman; C Chu; V Cornelius; F Douglas; A Lucassen; A Nehammer; S Sutton; M Trivella; S Hodgson
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.446

View more
  5 in total

1.  Allocation of Resources to Communication of Research Result Summaries.

Authors:  Julie E Richards; Emmi Bane; Stephanie M Fullerton; Evette J Ludman; Gail Jarvik
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  Preferences for multigene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer risk among ethnically diverse BRCA-uninformative families.

Authors:  Belinda Vicuña; Harold D Delaney; Kristina G Flores; Lori Ballinger; Melanie Royce; Zoneddy Dayao; Tuya Pal; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-10-02

Review 3.  Repository of Human Blood Derivative Biospecimens in Biobank: Technical Implications.

Authors:  Ashraf Mohamadkhani; Hossein Poustchi
Journal:  Middle East J Dig Dis       Date:  2015-04

4.  Data in question: A survey of European biobank professionals on ethical, legal and societal challenges of biobank research.

Authors:  Melanie Goisauf; Gillian Martin; Heidi Beate Bentzen; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lars Ursin; Anna Durnová; Liis Leitsalu; Katharine Smith; Sara Casati; Marialuisa Lavitrano; Deborah Mascalzoni; Martin Boeckhout; Michaela Th Mayrhofer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Preferences for Updates on General Research Results: A Survey of Participants in Genomic Research from Two Institutions.

Authors:  Casey Overby Taylor; Natalie Flaks Manov; Katherine D Crew; Chunhua Weng; John J Connolly; Christopher G Chute; Daniel E Ford; Harold Lehmann; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Pedro J Caraballo; Ingrid A Holm; Debra Mathews
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-05-11
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.