Literature DB >> 28382417

De-identified genomic data sharing: the research participant perspective.

Deborah Goodman1, Catherine O Johnson2, Deborah Bowen3, Megan Smith4, Lari Wenzel2, Karen Edwards5.   

Abstract

Combining datasets into larger and separate datasets is becoming increasingly common, and personal identifiers are often removed in order to maintain participant anonymity. Views of research participants on the use of de-identified data in large research datasets are important for future projects, such as the Precision Medicine Initiative and Cancer Moonshot Initiative. This quantitative study set in the USA examines participant preferences and evaluates differences by demographics and cancer history. Study participants were recruited from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and included cancer patients, their relatives, and controls. A secure online survey was administered to 450 participants. While the majority participants were not concerned about personal identification when participating in a genetic study using de-identified data, they expressed their concern that researchers protect their privacy and information. Most participants expressed a desire that their data should be available for as many research studies as possible, and in doing so, they would increase their chance of receiving personal health information. About 20% of participants felt that a link should not be maintained between the participant and their de-identified data. Reasons to maintain a link included an ability to return individual health results and an ability to support further research. Knowledge of participants' attitudes regarding the use of data into a research repository and the maintenance of a link to de-identified data is critical to the success of recruitment into future genomic research projects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Data linkage; De-identification; Genomic research; Participant views; Precision Medicine

Year:  2017        PMID: 28382417      PMCID: PMC5496839          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-017-0300-1

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


  19 in total

Review 1.  Age and motives for volunteering: testing hypotheses derived from socioemotional selectivity theory.

Authors:  Morris A Okun; Amy Schultz
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2003-06

2.  A new initiative on precision medicine.

Authors:  Francis S Collins; Harold Varmus
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Study newsletters, community and ethics advisory boards, and focus group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Ann Garber; Jonathan C Reeser; Norman C Fost
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 2.802

4.  Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Anuradha Nair; Diane M Austin; Philip F Giampietro
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2007

5.  Research participants' attitudes towards the confidentiality of genomic sequence information.

Authors:  Leila Jamal; Julie C Sapp; Katie Lewis; Tatiane Yanes; Flavia M Facio; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  What Should Be the Character of the Researcher- Participant Relationship? Views of Participants in a Long-standing Cancer Genetic Registry.

Authors:  Celeste M Condit; Diane M Korngiebel; Lesley Pfeifer; Anne D Renz; Deborah J Bowen; David Kaufman; Laura Min Mercer Kollar; Karen L Edwards
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug

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.  Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials.

Authors:  C Daugherty; M J Ratain; E Grochowski; C Stocking; E Kodish; R Mick; M Siegler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Assessing the understanding of biobank participants.

Authors:  K E Ormond; A L Cirino; I B Helenowski; R L Chisholm; W A Wolf
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  We're not in it for the money-lay people's moral intuitions on commercial use of 'their' biobank.

Authors:  Kristin Solum Steinsbekk; Lars Oystein Ursin; John-Arne Skolbekken; Berge Solberg
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2013-05
View more
  18 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

Review 2.  The research participant perspective related to the conduct of genomic cohort studies: A systematic review of the quantitative literature.

Authors:  Deborah Goodman; Deborah Bowen; Lari Wenzel; Paris Tehrani; Francis Fernando; Araksi Khacheryan; Farihah Chowdhury; Catherine O Johnson; Karen Edwards
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  A comparison of views regarding the use of de-identified data.

Authors:  Deborah Goodman; Catherine O Johnson; Deborah Bowen; Megan Smith; Lari Wenzel; Karen L Edwards
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 4.  Use and Understanding of Anonymization and De-Identification in the Biomedical Literature: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Raphaël Chevrier; Vasiliki Foufi; Christophe Gaudet-Blavignac; Arnaud Robert; Christian Lovis
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Willingness to Participate in Health Information Networks with Diverse Data Use: Evaluating Public Perspectives.

Authors:  Jodyn Platt; Minakshi Raj; Ayşe G Büyüktür; M Grace Trinidad; Olufunmilayo Olopade; Mark S Ackerman; Sharon Kardia
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2019-07-25

6.  User-focused data sharing agreements: a foundation for the genomic future.

Authors:  Carolyn Petersen
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2019-10-01

7.  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

8.  A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States.

Authors:  Ellen W Clayton; Colin M Halverson; Nila A Sathe; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Genomic variant sharing: a position statement.

Authors:  Caroline F Wright; James S Ware; Anneke M Lucassen; Alison Hall; Anna Middleton; Nazneen Rahman; Sian Ellard; Helen V Firth
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2019-02-05

10.  DNA Data Marketplace: An Analysis of the Ethical Concerns Regarding the Participation of the Individuals.

Authors:  Eman Ahmed; Mahsa Shabani
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.