PURPOSE: This study examined acceptability of two biobank consent models and evaluated the impact of beliefs about privacy and genetic safeguards on acceptance. METHODS:U.S. adults surveyed online in English and Spanish were randomly assigned to one of two scenarios examining acceptance of broad consent (n=1528), or narrow consent (n=1533). RESULTS: Overall, willingness to provide broad (76%) and narrow (74%) consents were similar. African Americans were as likely as white non-Hispanics to accept narrow consent (72% vs. 77%, p=0.35) but significantly less likely to accept broad consent (69% vs. 81%, p=0.004). Education, insurance, and blood donation history were also related to acceptance. Adjusting for beliefs about privacy and policy protections (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, GINA), the effects of the variables were reduced. Respondents who drew comfort from GINA were more likely to support both consent (both p<0.001); those who believed it is impossible to maintain privacy were less likely to find both broad (p=0.04) and narrow models acceptable (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Choice of consent model matters when engaging diverse populations in biobank research. Beliefs underlying concerns about privacy and genetic protections should be considered when constructing biobank protocols.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This study examined acceptability of two biobank consent models and evaluated the impact of beliefs about privacy and genetic safeguards on acceptance. METHODS: U.S. adults surveyed online in English and Spanish were randomly assigned to one of two scenarios examining acceptance of broad consent (n=1528), or narrow consent (n=1533). RESULTS: Overall, willingness to provide broad (76%) and narrow (74%) consents were similar. African Americans were as likely as white non-Hispanics to accept narrow consent (72% vs. 77%, p=0.35) but significantly less likely to accept broad consent (69% vs. 81%, p=0.004). Education, insurance, and blood donation history were also related to acceptance. Adjusting for beliefs about privacy and policy protections (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, GINA), the effects of the variables were reduced. Respondents who drew comfort from GINA were more likely to support both consent (both p<0.001); those who believed it is impossible to maintain privacy were less likely to find both broad (p=0.04) and narrow models acceptable (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Choice of consent model matters when engaging diverse populations in biobank research. Beliefs underlying concerns about privacy and genetic protections should be considered when constructing biobank protocols.
Authors: Samantha A Streicher; Saskia C Sanderson; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Michael Diefenbach; Meg Smirnoff; Inga Peter; Carol R Horowitz; Barbara Brenner; Lynne D Richardson Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2011-06-07
Authors: J L Ridgeway; L C Han; J E Olson; K A Lackore; B A Koenig; T J Beebe; J Y Ziegenfuss Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2013-04-12 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: J O'Daniel; J Lucas; P Deverka; D Ermentrout; G Silvey; D F Lobach; S B Haga Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Nao Hagiwara; Lisa Berry-Bobovski; Carie Francis; Lauren Ramsey; Robert A Chapman; Terrance L Albrecht Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Maureen Wilson-Genderson; K Laura Barker; Heather M Gardiner; Maghboeba Mosavel; Jeffrey Thomas; Laura A Siminoff Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Susan W Groth; Ann Dozier; Margaret Demment; Dongmei Li; I Diana Fernandez; Jack Chang; Timothy Dye Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Laura A Siminoff; Maureen Wilson-Genderson; Maghboeba Mosavel; Laura Barker; Jennifer Trgina; Heather M Traino Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2017-01-25
Authors: Christian M Parobek; Margaret M Thorsen; Phinnara Has; Paula Lorenzi; Melissa A Clark; Melissa L Russo; Adam K Lewkowitz Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-03-26 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Teddy D Warner; Carol J Weil; Christopher Andry; Howard B Degenholtz; Lisa Parker; Latarsha J Carithers; Michelle Feige; David Wendler; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Lisa Gallicchio; Joanne W Elena; Sarah Fagan; Marjorie Carter; Ann S Hamilton; Theresa A Hastert; Lisa L Hunter; Jie Li; Charles F Lynch; Joel Milam; Morgan M Millar; Denise Modjeski; Lisa E Paddock; Amanda R Reed; Lisa B Moses; Antoinette M Stroup; Carol Sweeney; Edward J Trapido; Michele M West; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Kathy J Helzlsouer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 4.254