Literature DB >> 25735479

Stakeholders' perspectives on biobank-based genomic research: systematic review of the literature.

Alma Husedzinovic1,2, Dominik Ose3, Christoph Schickhardt1, Stefan Fröhling2, Eva C Winkler1.   

Abstract

The success of biobank-based genomic research is widely dependent on people's willingness to donate their tissue. Thus, stakeholders' opinions should be considered in the development of best practice guidelines for research and recruiting participants. We systematically analyzed the empirical literature describing different stakeholders' views towards ethical questions with regard to type of consent, data sharing and return of incidental findings. Patients are more open to one-time general consent than the public. Only a small proportion desires recontact if the research aim changed. A broad consent model would prevent only a small proportion of patients from participating in research. Although professionals are concerned about a risk of reidentification, patients and the public support data sharing and find that the benefit of research outweighs the potential risk of reidentification. However, they desire detailed information about the privacy protection measures. Regarding the return of incidental findings, the public and professionals focus on clinically actionable results, whereas patients are interested in receiving as much information as possible. For professionals, concrete guidelines that help managing the return of incidental findings should be warranted. For this it would be helpful addressing the different categories - actionable, untreatable and inheritable diseases - upfront with patients and public.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25735479      PMCID: PMC4795193          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.27

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  64 in total

Review 1.  Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered.

Authors:  Annelien L Bredenoord; Hester Y Kroes; Edwin Cuppen; Michael Parker; Johannes J M van Delden
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2010-12-27       Impact factor: 11.639

Review 2.  Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks.

Authors:  Mark A Rothstein
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 3.  Lessons from the cancer genome.

Authors:  Levi A Garraway; Eric S Lander
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 41.582

4.  Substance use disorder genetic research: investigators and participants grapple with the ethical issues.

Authors:  Marilyn E Coors; Kristen M Raymond
Journal:  Psychiatr Genet       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.458

5.  Communication of biobanks' research results: what do (potential) participants want?

Authors:  Tineke M Meulenkamp; Sjef K Gevers; Jasper A Bovenberg; Gerard H Koppelman; Astrid van Hylckama Vlieg; Ellen M A Smets
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 6.  Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy.

Authors:  Yaniv Erlich; Arvind Narayanan
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 53.242

7.  Perceptions of potential donors in the Swedish public towards information and consent procedures in relation to use of human tissue samples in biobanks: a population-based study.

Authors:  Asa Kettis-Lindblad; Lena Ring; Eva Viberth; Mats G Hansson
Journal:  Scand J Public Health       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli Murphy-Bollinger; Joan Scott; Kathy L Hudson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics.

Authors:  Mildred K Cho
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

10.  Beliefs and attitudes towards participating in genetic research - a population based cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Samantha M Kerath; Gila Klein; Marlena Kern; Iuliana Shapira; Jennifer Witthuhn; Nicole Norohna; Myriam Kline; Farisha Baksh; Peter Gregersen; Emanuela Taioli
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 3.295

View more
  23 in total

1.  Returning Results: Let's Be Honest!

Authors:  Bernice S Elger; Eva De Clercq
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-02-24

2.  Public Attitudes Toward Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Grayson L Ruhl; James W Hazel; Ellen Wright Clayton; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

3.  Patient Preferences for Use of Archived Biospecimens from Oncology Trials When Adequacy of Informed Consent Is Unclear.

Authors:  Jeffrey Peppercorn; Eric Campbell; Steve Isakoff; Nora K Horick; Julia Rabin; Katharine Quain; Lecia V Sequist; Aditya Bardia; Deborah Collyar; Fay Hlubocky; Debra Mathews
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-09-06

4.  Broad consent in practice: lessons learned from a hospital-based biobank for prospective research on genomic and medical data.

Authors:  Gaia Barazzetti; Francesca Bosisio; Daria Koutaissoff; Brenda Spencer
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences.

Authors:  Deborah R Gordon; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Marguerite Robinson; Wesley O Petersen; Jason S Egginton; Kari G Chaffee; Gloria M Petersen; Susan M Wolf; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2018-12-31

6.  Knowledge, perceptions and attitude of Egyptian physicians towards biobanking issues.

Authors:  Ahmed Samir Abdelhafiz; Eman A Sultan; Hany H Ziady; Douaa M Sayed; Walaa A Khairy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Communicating BRCA research results to patients enrolled in international clinical trials: lessons learnt from the AGO-OVAR 16 study.

Authors:  David J Pulford; Philipp Harter; Anne Floquet; Catherine Barrett; Dong Hoon Suh; Michael Friedlander; José Angel Arranz; Kosei Hasegawa; Hiroomi Tada; Peter Vuylsteke; Mansoor R Mirza; Nicoletta Donadello; Giovanni Scambia; Toby Johnson; Charles Cox; John K Chan; Martin Imhof; Thomas J Herzog; Paula Calvert; Pauline Wimberger; Dominique Berton-Rigaud; Myong Cheol Lim; Gabriele Elser; Chun-Fang Xu; Andreas du Bois
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  The alliance between genetic biobanks and patient organisations: the experience of the telethon network of genetic biobanks.

Authors:  Chiara Baldo; Lorena Casareto; Alessandra Renieri; Giuseppe Merla; Barbara Garavaglia; Stefano Goldwurm; Elena Pegoraro; Maurizio Moggio; Marina Mora; Luisa Politano; Luca Sangiorgi; Raffaella Mazzotti; Valeria Viotti; Ilaria Meloni; Maria Teresa Pellico; Chiara Barzaghi; Chiuhui Mary Wang; Lucia Monaco; Mirella Filocamo
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 4.123

9.  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

10.  Facilitating a culture of responsible and effective sharing of cancer genome data.

Authors:  Lillian L Siu; Mark Lawler; David Haussler; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Jeremy Lewin; Daniel J Vis; Rachel G Liao; Fabrice Andre; Ian Banks; J Carl Barrett; Carlos Caldas; Anamaria Aranha Camargo; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Mao Mao; John E Mattison; William Pao; William R Sellers; Patrick Sullivan; Bin Tean Teh; Robyn L Ward; Jean Claude ZenKlusen; Charles L Sawyers; Emile E Voest
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 53.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.