Laura A Siminoff1, Maureen Wilson-Genderson1, Maghboeba Mosavel2, Laura Barker1, Jennifer Trgina2, Heather M Traino3. 1. 1 College of Public Health, Temple University , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. 2 Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University , Richmond, Virginia. 3. 3 Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
AIMS: Confidentiality of personal identifiers potentially linking the genetic results from biobanking participants back to the donor and donor relatives is a concern. The risks associated with a breach of confidentiality should be ascertained when biobanks collect samples requiring the consent of a family decision maker (FDM) from deceased organ and tissue donors. This article explores FDM knowledge and opinions regarding risks associated with participation in biobanking research in the context of the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project. METHODS: Data collection included a survey completed by organ procurement organization requesters (n = 37) and semistructured telephone interviews with the FDMs (n = 85). RESULTS: Donor families were more likely to know that there was a risk that a patient's identity could be revealed through a breach of confidentiality (p < 0.05). They also were more likely to understand that researchers using biobanked tissue would not have access to the patient's exact identity (p < 0.05). FDMs who refused donation were more concerned about risks than donors and reported lower levels of support for medical research in general. Finally, families were frequently interested in the return of results and willing to trade absolute confidentiality for participation. CONCLUSIONS: Clear discussion of the risk of breach of confidentiality is needed during the consent process. The risk and benefit equation could be equalized if studies such as GTEx offered genomic results to interested participants.
AIMS: Confidentiality of personal identifiers potentially linking the genetic results from biobanking participants back to the donor and donor relatives is a concern. The risks associated with a breach of confidentiality should be ascertained when biobanks collect samples requiring the consent of a family decision maker (FDM) from deceased organ and tissue donors. This article explores FDM knowledge and opinions regarding risks associated with participation in biobanking research in the context of the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project. METHODS: Data collection included a survey completed by organ procurement organization requesters (n = 37) and semistructured telephone interviews with the FDMs (n = 85). RESULTS:Donor families were more likely to know that there was a risk that a patient's identity could be revealed through a breach of confidentiality (p < 0.05). They also were more likely to understand that researchers using biobanked tissue would not have access to the patient's exact identity (p < 0.05). FDMs who refused donation were more concerned about risks than donors and reported lower levels of support for medical research in general. Finally, families were frequently interested in the return of results and willing to trade absolute confidentiality for participation. CONCLUSIONS: Clear discussion of the risk of breach of confidentiality is needed during the consent process. The risk and benefit equation could be equalized if studies such as GTEx offered genomic results to interested participants.
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
Authors: Amy L McGuire; Jill Oliver Robinson; Rachel B Ramoni; Debra S Morley; Steven Jofe; Sharon E Plon Journal: Per Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Christine Grady; Lisa Eckstein; Ben Berkman; Dan Brock; Robert Cook-Deegan; Stephanie M Fullerton; Hank Greely; Mats G Hansson; Sara Hull; Scott Kim; Bernie Lo; Rebecca Pentz; Laura Rodriguez; Carol Weil; Benjamin S Wilfond; David Wendler Journal: Am J Bioeth Date: 2015 Impact factor: 11.229
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: Laura A Siminoff; Heather M Traino; Maghboeba Mosavel; Laura Barker; Glencora Gudger; Anita Undale Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Gail E Henderson; R Jean Cadigan; Teresa P Edwards; Ian Conlon; Anders G Nelson; James P Evans; Arlene M Davis; Catherine Zimmer; Bryan J Weiner Journal: Genome Med Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Casey Lynnette Overby; Kristin A Maloney; Tameka DeShawn Alestock; Justin Chavez; David Berman; Reem Maged Sharaf; Tom Fitzgerald; Eun-Young Kim; Kathleen Palmer; Alan R Shuldiner; Braxton D Mitchell Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2015-07-28
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: 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: Joseph Ochieng; Betty Kwagala; John Barugahare; Erisa Mwaka; Deborah Ekusai-Sebatta; Joseph Ali; Nelson K Sewankambo Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: Stephanie Lucas; Michaela Tencerova; Benoit von der Weid; Thomas Levin Andersen; Camille Attané; Friederike Behler-Janbeck; William P Cawthorn; Kaisa K Ivaska; Olaia Naveiras; Izabela Podgorski; Michaela R Reagan; Bram C J van der Eerden Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 5.555