Literature DB >> 26801345

Participant views on consent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era.

Karen L Edwards1,2, Diane M Korngiebel3, Lesley Pfeifer4, Deborah Goodman5, Anne Renz6, Lari Wenzel7, Deborah J Bowen8,9, Celeste M Condit10.   

Abstract

The Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) has created considerable discussions about research participant issues including re-consent and how and when to incorporate the patient experience into clinical trials. Within the changing landscape of genetic and genomic research, the preferences of participants are lacking yet are needed to inform policy. With the growing use of biobanks intended to support studies, including the national research cohort proposed under the PMI, understanding participant preferences, including re-consent, is a pressing concern. The Participant Issues Project (PIP) addresses this gap, and here we present data on participant attitudes regarding re-consent and broad consent in research studies. PIP study participants came from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and included cancer patients, relatives, and controls. Thirty telephone interviews were conducted and analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Results indicate that in some scenarios, re-consent is needed. Most participants agreed that re-consent was necessary when the study direction changed significantly or a child participant became an adult, but not if the genetic variant changed. Most participants' willingness to participate in research would not be affected if the researcher or institution profited or if a broad consent form were used. Participants emphasized re-consent to provide information and control of the use of their data, now relevant for tailored treatment, while also prioritizing research as important. In the era of precision medicine, it is essential that policy makers consider participant preferences with regard to use of their materials and that participants understand genetic and genomic research and its harms and benefits as well as what broad consent entails, including privacy and re-identification risks.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Broad consent; Consent; Genetics; Participant views; Precision medicine; Re-consent

Year:  2016        PMID: 26801345      PMCID: PMC4796049          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-015-0259-8

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


  38 in total

1.  Reforming informed consent to genetic research.

Authors:  G J Annas
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Introduction: return of research results: how should research results be handled?

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Emmanuelle Lévesque
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 1.718

3.  Research ethics. Children and population biobanks.

Authors:  David Gurwitz; Isabel Fortier; Jeantine E Lunshof; Bartha Maria Knoppers
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research.

Authors:  Altovise T Ewing; Lori A H Erby; Juli Bollinger; Eva Tetteyfio; Luisel J Ricks-Santi; David Kaufman
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.300

5.  Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers.

Authors:  K L Edwards; A A Lemke; S B Trinidad; S M Lewis; H Starks; M T Quinn Griffin; G L Wiesner
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  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

7.  The Cancer Genetics Network: recruitment results and pilot studies.

Authors:  Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Deborah Bowen; Dianne Finkelstein; Constance Griffin; James Hanson; Claudine Isaacs; Carol Kasten-Sportes; Geraldine Mineau; Prakash Nadkarni; Barbara Rimer; Joellen Schildkraut; Louise Strong; Barbara Weber; Deborah Winn; Robert Hiatt; Susan Nayfield
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2003

8.  A systematic review of re-identification attacks on health data.

Authors:  Khaled El Emam; Elizabeth Jonker; Luk Arbuckle; Bradley Malin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Great expectations: views of genetic research participants regarding current and future genetic studies.

Authors:  Gail Henderson; Joanne Garrett; Jada Bussey-Jones; Mairead Eastin Moloney; Connie Blumenthal; Giselle Corbie-Smith
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Genetics researchers' and IRB professionals' attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis.

Authors:  Karen L Edwards; Amy A Lemke; Susan B Trinidad; Susan M Lewis; Helene Starks; Katherine W Snapinn; Mary Quinn Griffin; Georgia L Wiesner; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  3 in total

1.  A qualitative study of participants' views on re-consent in a longitudinal biobank.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; David Kocman; Liz Brewster; Janet Willars; Graeme Laurie; Carolyn Tarrant
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 2.652

2.  Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka; Deborah Ekusai Sebatta; Joseph Ochieng; Ian Guyton Munabi; Godfrey Bagenda; Deborah Ainembabazi; David Kaawa-Mafigiri
Journal:  Glob Bioeth       Date:  2021-03-09

3.  Molecular Tumor Boards: Ethical Issues in the New Era of Data Medicine.

Authors:  Henri-Corto Stoeklé; Marie-France Mamzer-Bruneel; Charles-Henry Frouart; Christophe Le Tourneau; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Guillaume Vogt; Christian Hervé
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 3.525

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.