Literature DB >> 25747294

Impact of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate to biobanks: an experimental survey.

Michele C Gornick1, Kerry A Ryan2, Scott Y H Kim3.   

Abstract

The ethical debate surrounding biobanks has focused on protecting donors' welfare and privacy. However, little attention has been given to the ethical significance of donor interests that go beyond privacy and welfare (non-welfare interests [NWIs]), such as their concerns about the moral or religious implications of researchers using their donated samples. Using an experimental survey design with 1,276 participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), we studied the potential impact of eight NWI scenarios on people's attitudes toward research studies being performed on samples donated to biobanks by assessing willingness to donate, attitudes toward disclosure of NWIs, impact of timing and format of disclosure (number of NWIs disclosed on a page), and participant factors associated with willingness to donate. Baseline willingness to donate to biobanks prior to any mention of NWIs was comparable with previous studies, at 85% to 89%. Most participants wanted NWI disclosures prior to donation to biobanks, but far fewer favored specific consent. Overall pattern of responses showed that as participants receive more information about NWIs, willingness to donate decreases in a scenario dependent manner. Specifically, NWI concerns about profit seeking research and insurance risk assessment had the strongest impact, even greater than controversial issues such as reproductive research, regardless of political, religious, and most other characteristics of respondents. Based on the results, a schema of NWI types is proposed that could be used for further research and policy discussions.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biobank donation; blanket consent; informed consent; non-welfare interests; public attitudes

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25747294      PMCID: PMC5558242          DOI: 10.1177/1556264614544277

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  29 in total

1.  The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think?

Authors:  Dave Wendler; Ezekiel Emanuel
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-08

2.  Citizens' values regarding research with stored samples from newborn screening in Canada.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Fiona A Miller; Robin Z Hayeems; June C Carroll; Denise Avard; Brenda J Wilson; Julian Little; Jessica P Bytautas; Judith Allanson; Renata Axler; Yves Giguere; Pranesh Chakraborty
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2012-01-16       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 3.  The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks.

Authors:  Anne Cambon-Thomsen
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Governance of dual-use research: an ethical dilemma.

Authors:  Michael J Selgelid
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 9.408

5.  Deliberative assessment of surrogate consent in dementia research.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Rebecca A Uhlmann; Paul S Appelbaum; David S Knopman; H Myra Kim; Laura Damschroder; Elizabeth Beattie; Laura Struble; Raymond De Vries
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 21.566

6.  Measuring how people view biomedical research: Reliability and validity analysis of the Research Attitudes Questionnaire.

Authors:  Jonathan D Rubright; Mark S Cary; Jason H Karlawish; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research.

Authors:  S Y H Kim; H M Kim; D S Knopman; R De Vries; L Damschroder; P S Appelbaum
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks.

Authors:  A Cambon-Thomsen; E Rial-Sebbag; B M Knoppers
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 16.671

9.  What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research: a focus group study.

Authors:  Naomi Pfeffer
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Ian F Wall; Aimee Stanczyk; Raymond De Vries
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.742

View more
  10 in total

1.  Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank.

Authors:  Tom Tomlinson; Raymond De Vries; Kerry Ryan; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Nicole Lehpamer; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Clinical Trial Participants' Views of the Risks and Benefits of Data Sharing.

Authors:  Michelle M Mello; Van Lieou; Steven N Goodman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Gamete and embryo donation for research: what might shape the willingness to donate among gamete donors and recipients?

Authors:  Sandra Pinto da Silva; Cláudia de Freitas; Milton Severo; Susana Silva
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-08-20       Impact factor: 3.357

4.  Encouraging Participation And Transparency In Biobank Research.

Authors:  Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Raymond G De Vries; Michele G Gornick; Andrew G Shuman; Sharon Kardia; Jodyn Platt
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate.

Authors:  Raymond G De Vries; Tom Tomlinson; H Myra Kim; Chris D Krenz; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole Lehpamer; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2016-03-11

6.  Understanding the Public's Reservations about Broad Consent and Study-By-Study Consent for Donations to a Biobank: Results of a National Survey.

Authors:  Raymond Gene De Vries; Tom Tomlinson; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Chris Krenz; Diana Haggerty; Kerry A Ryan; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Community recommendations on biobank governance: Results from a deliberative community engagement in California.

Authors:  Sarah M Dry; Sarah B Garrett; Barbara A Koenig; Arleen F Brown; Michael M Burgess; Jen R Hult; Holly Longstaff; Elizabeth S Wilcox; Sigrid Karina Madrigal Contreras; Arturo Martinez; Elizabeth A Boyd; Daniel Dohan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Stem cell preservation for regenerative therapies: ethical and governance considerations for the health care sector.

Authors:  Zubin Master; Aidan P Crowley; Cambray Smith; Dennis Wigle; Andre Terzic; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  NPJ Regen Med       Date:  2020-12-01

9.  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

10.  Mapping of Crowdsourcing in Health: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Perrine Créquit; Ghizlène Mansouri; Mehdi Benchoufi; Alexandre Vivot; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 5.428

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.