Literature DB >> 26769748

Identifying public expectations of genetic biobanks.

Christine Critchley1,2, Dianne Nicol2, Rebekah McWhirter2.   

Abstract

Understanding public priorities for biobanks is vital for maximising utility and efficiency of genetic research and maintaining respect for donors. This research directly assessed the relative importance the public place on different expectations of biobanks. Quantitative and qualitative results from a national sample of 800 Australians revealed that the majority attributed more importance to protecting privacy and ethical conduct than maximising new healthcare benefits, which was in turn viewed as more important than obtaining specific consent, benefit sharing, collaborating and sharing data. A latent class analysis identified two distinct classes displaying different patterns of expectations. One placed higher priority on behaviours that respect the donor ( n = 623), the other on accelerating science ( n = 278). Additional expectations derived from qualitative data included the need for biobanks to be transparent and to prioritise their research focus, educate the public and address commercialisation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biobanking; genomic research; public health; public opinion

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26769748     DOI: 10.1177/0963662515623925

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Underst Sci        ISSN: 0963-6625


  9 in total

1.  Perceived fairness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing business models.

Authors:  Philipp A Toussaint; Scott Thiebes; Manuel Schmidt-Kraepelin; Ali Sunyaev
Journal:  Electron Mark       Date:  2022-07-18

2.  Public trust and 'ethics review' as a commodity: the case of Genomics England Limited and the UK's 100,000 genomes project.

Authors:  Gabrielle Natalie Samuel; Bobbie Farsides
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2018-06

Review 3.  Australia: regulating genomic data sharing to promote public trust.

Authors:  Lisa Eckstein; Donald Chalmers; Christine Critchley; Ruthie Jeanneret; Rebekah McWhirter; Jane Nielsen; Margaret Otlowski; Dianne Nicol
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 4.132

4.  Determinants of the willingness to participate in biobanking among Malaysian stakeholders in the Klang Valley.

Authors:  Latifah Amin; Hasrizul Hashim; Zurina Mahadi; Khaidzir Ismail
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  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

6.  Motives for withdrawal of participation in biobanking and participants' willingness to allow linkages of their data.

Authors:  Reinder Broekstra; Judith L Aris-Meijer; Els L M Maeckelberghe; Ronald P Stolk; Sabine Otten
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Public trust and global biobank networks.

Authors:  Lisa Dive; Christine Critchley; Margaret Otlowski; Paul Mason; Miriam Wiersma; Edwina Light; Cameron Stewart; Ian Kerridge; Wendy Lipworth
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-08-15       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  Demographic and prosocial intrapersonal characteristics of biobank participants and refusers: the findings of a survey in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Reinder Broekstra; Judith Aris-Meijer; Els Maeckelberghe; Ronald Stolk; Sabine Otten
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research.

Authors:  Gail Davies; Richard Gorman; Renelle McGlacken; Sara Peres
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.471

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.