Literature DB >> 28190457

Public Attitudes toward Consent and Data Sharing in Biobank Research: A Large Multi-site Experimental Survey in the US.

Saskia C Sanderson1, Kyle B Brothers2, Nathaniel D Mercaldo3, Ellen Wright Clayton4, Armand H Matheny Antommaria5, Sharon A Aufox6, Murray H Brilliant7, Diego Campos8, David S Carrell9, John Connolly10, Pat Conway11, Stephanie M Fullerton12, Nanibaa' A Garrison13, Carol R Horowitz14, Gail P Jarvik15, David Kaufman16, Terrie E Kitchner7, Rongling Li17, Evette J Ludman9, Catherine A McCarty11, Jennifer B McCormick18, Valerie D McManus19, Melanie F Myers20, Aaron Scrol9, Janet L Williams21, Martha J Shrubsole22, Jonathan S Schildcrout3, Maureen E Smith6, Ingrid A Holm23.   

Abstract

Individuals participating in biobanks and other large research projects are increasingly asked to provide broad consent for open-ended research use and widespread sharing of their biosamples and data. We assessed willingness to participate in a biobank using different consent and data sharing models, hypothesizing that willingness would be higher under more restrictive scenarios. Perceived benefits, concerns, and information needs were also assessed. In this experimental survey, individuals from 11 US healthcare systems in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network were randomly allocated to one of three hypothetical scenarios: tiered consent and controlled data sharing; broad consent and controlled data sharing; or broad consent and open data sharing. Of 82,328 eligible individuals, exactly 13,000 (15.8%) completed the survey. Overall, 66% (95% CI: 63%-69%) of population-weighted respondents stated they would be willing to participate in a biobank; willingness and attitudes did not differ between respondents in the three scenarios. Willingness to participate was associated with self-identified white race, higher educational attainment, lower religiosity, perceiving more research benefits, fewer concerns, and fewer information needs. Most (86%, CI: 84%-87%) participants would want to know what would happen if a researcher misused their health information; fewer (51%, CI: 47%-55%) would worry about their privacy. The concern that the use of broad consent and open data sharing could adversely affect participant recruitment is not supported by these findings. Addressing potential participants' concerns and information needs and building trust and relationships with communities may increase acceptance of broad consent and wide data sharing in biobank research.
Copyright © 2017 American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biobank research; biorepository research; broad consent; data sharing; informed consent; tiered consent

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28190457      PMCID: PMC5339111          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  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.  Genomics for the world.

Authors:  Carlos D Bustamante; Esteban González Burchard; Francisco M De la Vega
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  New models of collaboration in genome-wide association studies: the Genetic Association Information Network.

Authors:  Teri A Manolio; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Lisa Brooks; Gonçalo Abecasis; Dennis Ballinger; Mark Daly; Peter Donnelly; Stephen V Faraone; Kelly Frazer; Stacey Gabriel; Pablo Gejman; Alan Guttmacher; Emily L Harris; Thomas Insel; John R Kelsoe; Eric Lander; Norma McCowin; Matthew D Mailman; Elizabeth Nabel; James Ostell; Elizabeth Pugh; Stephen Sherry; Patrick F Sullivan; John F Thompson; James Warram; David Wholley; Patrice M Milos; Francis S Collins
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 38.330

4.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

5.  Factors influencing public risk-benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing.

Authors:  Shirley S Ho; Dietram A Scheufele; Elizabeth A Corley
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2011-09-21

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.  Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli Murphy-Bollinger; Joan Scott; Kathy L Hudson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Joint replacement recipients' post-surgery views about health information privacy and registry participation.

Authors:  Amanda L Terry; Bert M Chesworth; Paul Stolee; Robert B Bourne; Mark Speechley
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 2.980

9.  The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate.

Authors:  Raymond G De Vries; Tom Tomlinson; H Myra Kim; Chris D Krenz; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole Lehpamer; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2016-03-11

10.  Consent for genetic research in a general population: the NHANES experience.

Authors:  Geraldine M McQuillan; Kathryn S Porter; Maria Agelli; Raynard Kington
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  76 in total

1.  Children's rare disease cohorts: an integrative research and clinical genomics initiative.

Authors:  Shira Rockowitz; Nicholas LeCompte; Mary Carmack; Andrew Quitadamo; Lily Wang; Meredith Park; Devon Knight; Emma Sexton; Lacey Smith; Beth Sheidley; Michael Field; Ingrid A Holm; Catherine A Brownstein; Pankaj B Agrawal; Susan Kornetsky; Annapurna Poduri; Scott B Snapper; Alan H Beggs; Timothy W Yu; David A Williams; Piotr Sliz
Journal:  NPJ Genom Med       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 8.617

2.  Evaluation Considerations for Secondary Uses of Clinical Data: Principles for an Evidence-based Approach to Policy and Implementation of Secondary Analysis.

Authors:  P J Scott; M Rigby; E Ammenwerth; J Brender McNair; A Georgiou; H Hyppönen; N de Keizer; F Magrabi; P Nykänen; W T Gude; W Hackl
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2017-09-11

3.  Enrichment sampling for a multi-site patient survey using electronic health records and census data.

Authors:  Nathaniel D Mercaldo; Kyle B Brothers; David S Carrell; Ellen W Clayton; John J Connolly; Ingrid A Holm; Carol R Horowitz; Gail P Jarvik; Terrie E Kitchner; Rongling Li; Catherine A McCarty; Jennifer B McCormick; Valerie D McManus; Melanie F Myers; Joshua J Pankratz; Martha J Shrubsole; Maureen E Smith; Sarah C Stallings; Janet L Williams; Jonathan S Schildcrout
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Public Attitudes Toward Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Grayson L Ruhl; James W Hazel; Ellen Wright Clayton; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

Review 5.  Large-Scale Genomic Biobanks and Cardiovascular Disease.

Authors:  Aeron M Small; Christopher J O'Donnell; Scott M Damrauer
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 2.931

6.  Clinical Trial Participants' Views of the Risks and Benefits of Data Sharing.

Authors:  Michelle M Mello; Van Lieou; Steven N Goodman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  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

8.  A Prospective Study of Parental Perceptions of Rapid Whole-Genome and -Exome Sequencing among Seriously Ill Infants.

Authors:  Julie A Cakici; David P Dimmock; Sara A Caylor; Mary Gaughran; Christina Clarke; Cynthia Triplett; Michelle M Clark; Stephen F Kingsmore; Cinnamon S Bloss
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Public perception of predictive cancer genetic testing and research in Oregon.

Authors:  Teala W Alvord; Lisa K Marriott; Phuc T Nguyen; Autumn Shafer; Kim Brown; Wesley Stoller; Jennifer L Volpi; Jill Vandehey-Guerrero; Laura K Ferrara; Steven Blakesley; Erin Solomon; Hannah Kuehl; Amy J Palma; Paige E Farris; Kelly J Hamman; Madisen Cotter; Jackilen Shannon
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-03-27       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Parents' attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobanks: A multisite experimental survey.

Authors:  Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Kyle B Brothers; John A Myers; Yana B Feygin; Sharon A Aufox; Murray H Brilliant; Pat Conway; Stephanie M Fullerton; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Carol R Horowitz; Gail P Jarvik; Rongling Li; Evette J Ludman; Catherine A McCarty; Jennifer B McCormick; Nathaniel D Mercaldo; Melanie F Myers; Saskia C Sanderson; Martha J Shrubsole; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Janet L Williams; Maureen E Smith; Ellen Wright Clayton; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2018-09-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.