BACKGROUND: With the arrival of large-scale population-based genomic research studies, such as the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), the question of how to best consent participants is significant, and in an era of patient-centered research, few studies have evaluated participants' preferences about re-consent and broad consent. Using quantitative methods, this study evaluates participants' views regarding the acceptability of re-consent and broad consent in subjects from the Participant Issues Project. METHODS: A total of 450 participants were recruited from a cancer genetics registry, including cancer patients, their relatives, and controls. Participants completed a secure online survey. RESULTS: Most participants endorsed re-consent when investigating an unrelated health condition or sharing their de-identified data with an investigator at a different institution. Notification rather than re-consent was preferred when studying a different gene but the same disease. Over 80% of respondents endorsed re-consent when parents of a child gave the original consent and the child has now reached adulthood. Preferences for some scenarios varied by history of cancer at baseline, gender, stage of cancer, or case versus control group. The large majority of participants preferred the option to select broad consent categories of research. CONCLUSION: Understanding research participants' preferences, including their views on the need for re-consent, are critical to the success of the PMI.
BACKGROUND: With the arrival of large-scale population-based genomic research studies, such as the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), the question of how to best consent participants is significant, and in an era of patient-centered research, few studies have evaluated participants' preferences about re-consent and broad consent. Using quantitative methods, this study evaluates participants' views regarding the acceptability of re-consent and broad consent in subjects from the Participant Issues Project. METHODS: A total of 450 participants were recruited from a cancer genetics registry, including cancerpatients, their relatives, and controls. Participants completed a secure online survey. RESULTS: Most participants endorsed re-consent when investigating an unrelated health condition or sharing their de-identified data with an investigator at a different institution. Notification rather than re-consent was preferred when studying a different gene but the same disease. Over 80% of respondents endorsed re-consent when parents of a child gave the original consent and the child has now reached adulthood. Preferences for some scenarios varied by history of cancer at baseline, gender, stage of cancer, or case versus control group. The large majority of participants preferred the option to select broad consent categories of research. CONCLUSION: Understanding research participants' preferences, including their views on the need for re-consent, are critical to the success of the PMI.
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
Authors: Stephanie M Fullerton; Nicholas R Anderson; Greg Guzauskas; Dena Freeman; Kelly Fryer-Edwards Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 17.956
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
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
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 Racine Passmore; Amelia M Jamison; Gregory R Hancock; Moaz Abdelwadoud; C Daniel Mullins; Taylor B Rogers; Stephen B Thomas Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Amy L McGuire; Mary A Majumder; Angela G Villanueva; Jessica Bardill; Juli M Bollinger; Eric Boerwinkle; Tania Bubela; Patricia A Deverka; Barbara J Evans; Nanibaa' A Garrison; David Glazer; Melissa M Goldstein; Henry T Greely; Scott D Kahn; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; J Mark Lambright; John E Mattison; Christopher O'Donnell; Arti K Rai; Laura L Rodriguez; Tania Simoncelli; Sharon F Terry; Adrian M Thorogood; Michael S Watson; John T Wilbanks; Robert Cook-Deegan Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Gesine Richter; Michael Krawczak; Wolfgang Lieb; Lena Wolff; Stefan Schreiber; Alena Buyx Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 8.822