Literature DB >> 26304495

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

Katherine M Brown1, Bettina F Drake2,3, Sarah Gehlert2,3, Leslie E Wolf4, James DuBois2, Joann Seo2, Krista Woodward2, Hannah Perkins2, Melody S Goodman2,3, Kimberly A Kaphingst5,6.   

Abstract

Biobanks are essential resources, and participation by individuals from diverse groups is needed. Various models of consent have been proposed for secondary research use of biospecimens, differing in level of donor control and information received. Data are needed regarding participant preferences for models of consent, particularly among minorities. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 60 women to examine their attitudes about different models of consent. Recruitment was stratified by race (Black/White) and prior biobank participation (yes/no). Two coders independently coded interview transcripts. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. The majority of Black and White participants preferred "broad" consent (i.e., blanket permission for secondary research use of biospecimens), and the second most preferred model for both groups was "study-specific" consent (i.e., consent for each future research study). The qualitative analysis showed that participants selected their most preferred model for 3 major reasons: having enough information, having control over their sample, and being asked for permission. Least preferred was notice model (i.e., participants notified that biospecimens may be used in future research). Attitudes toward models of consent differed somewhat by race and prior biobank participation. Participants preferred models of consent for secondary research use of biospecimens that provided them with both specific and general information, control over their biospecimens, and asked them to give permission for use. Our findings suggest that it will be important for researchers to provide information about future uses of biospecimens to the extent possible and have an explicit permission step for secondary research use.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biobanks; Informed consent; Participant preferences; Race/ethnicity

Year:  2015        PMID: 26304495      PMCID: PMC4715814          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-015-0248-y

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


  40 in total

1.  Research with stored biological samples: what do research participants want?

Authors:  Donna T Chen; Donald L Rosenstein; Palaniappan Muthappan; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Franklin G Miller; Ezekiel J Emanuel; David Wendler
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-03-28

2.  Banking together. A unified model of informed consent for biobanking.

Authors:  Elena Salvaterra; Lucilla Lecchi; Silvia Giovanelli; Barbara Butti; Maria Teresa Bardella; Pier Alberto Bertazzi; Silvano Bosari; Guido Coggi; Domenico A Coviello; Faustina Lalatta; Maurizio Moggio; Mario Nosotti; Alberto Zanella; Paolo Rebulla
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 8.807

3.  Biobanking, consent, and certificates of confidentiality: does the ANPRM muddy the water?

Authors:  Brett A Williams; Leslie E Wolf
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics.

Authors:  L M Beskow; W Burke; J F Merz; P A Barr; S Terry; V B Penchaszadeh; L O Gostin; M Gwinn; M J Khoury
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

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

Authors:  Tevah Platt; Jodyn Platt; Daniel B Thiel; Nicole Fisher; Sharon L R Kardia
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-06-12

6.  Formative research on perceptions of biobanking: what community members think.

Authors:  John S Luque; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Francisco A Montel-Ishino; Mariana Arevalo; Shalanda A Bynum; Shalewa Noel-Thomas; Kristen J Wells; Clement K Gwede; Cathy D Meade
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  Pathologists enter debate on consent for genetic research on stored tissue.

Authors:  J Stephenson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-02-21       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Research ethics. Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf.

Authors:  S B Trinidad; S M Fullerton; E J Ludman; G P Jarvik; E B Larson; W Burke
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-01-21       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  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

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
  8 in total

1.  Seeing Beyond the Margins: Challenges to Informed Inclusion of Vulnerable Populations in Research.

Authors:  Sarah Gehlert; Jessica Mozersky
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  An empirical assessment of the short-term impacts of a reading of Deborah Zoe Laufer's drama Informed Consent on attitudes and intentions to participate in genetic research.

Authors:  Erin Rothwell; Jeffrey R Botkin; Sydney Cheek-O'Donnell; Bob Wong; Gretchen A Case; Erin Johnson; Trent Matheson; Alena Wilson; Nicole R Robinson; Jared Rawlings; Brooke Horejsi; Ana Maria Lopez; Carrie L Byington
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2018-04-06

3.  Race, Trust in Doctors, Privacy Concerns, and Consent Preferences for Biobanks.

Authors:  Soo Jung Hong; Bettina Drake; Melody Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2019-06-05

4.  Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

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

5.  Development of Plain Language Supplemental Materials for the Biobank Informed Consent Process.

Authors:  Bettina F Drake; Katherine M Brown; Sarah Gehlert; Leslie E Wolf; Joann Seo; Hannah Perkins; Melody S Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.037

6.  The Influence of Education on Public Trust and Consent Preferences With Residual Newborn Screening Dried Blood spots.

Authors:  Erin Rothwell; Bob Wong; Rebecca A Anderson; Jeffrey R Botkin
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  Evaluating models of consent in changing health research environments.

Authors:  Svenja Wiertz; Joachim Boldt
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2022-03-14

8.  The Impact of Communicating Uncertainty on Public Responses to Precision Medicine Research.

Authors:  Chelsea L Ratcliff; Bob Wong; Jakob D Jensen; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2021-10-27
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.