Literature DB >> 28822109

Consumer attitudes towards the establishment of a national Australian familial cancer research database by the Inherited Cancer Connect (ICCon) Partnership.

Laura Forrest1,2, Gillian Mitchell3,4, Letitia Thrupp3, Lara Petelin3, Kate Richardson3, Lyon Mascarenhas3, Mary-Anne Young3,5.   

Abstract

Clinical genetics units hold large amounts of information which could be utilised to benefit patients and their families. In Australia, a national research database, the Inherited Cancer Connect (ICCon) database, is being established that comprises clinical genetic data held for all carriers of mutations in cancer predisposition genes. Consumer input was sought to establish the acceptability of the inclusion of clinical genetic data into a research database. A qualitative approach using a modified nominal group technique was used to collect data through consumer forums conducted in three Australian states. Individuals who had previously received care from Familial Cancer Centres were invited to participate. Twenty-four consumers participated in three forums. Participants expressed positive attitudes about the establishment of the ICCon database, which were informed by the perceived benefits of the database including improved health outcomes for individuals with inherited cancer syndromes. Most participants were comfortable to waive consent for their clinical information to be included in the research database in a de-identified format. As major stakeholders, consumers have an integral role in contributing to the development and conduct of the ICCon database. As an initial step in the development of the ICCon database, the forums demonstrated consumers' acceptance of important aspects of the database including waiver of consent.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Consumer; Database; Inherited cancer; Research

Year:  2017        PMID: 28822109      PMCID: PMC5752654          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-017-0323-7

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


  18 in total

1.  Evolutionary psychology: toward a unifying theory and a hybrid science.

Authors:  L R Caporael
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  EMEA and consumer representation. European Medicines Evaluation Agency.

Authors:  J Collier; D Dickinson; S McKechnie
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-10-11       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  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

4.  The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies.

Authors:  A H Van de Ven; A L Delbecq
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1972-03       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Consulting the community: public expectations and attitudes about genetics research.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Jane Green; Elizabeth Dicks; Daryl Pullman; Catherine Street; Patrick Parfrey
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Community engagement with genetics: public perceptions and expectations about genetics research.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Jane Green; Patrick Parfrey; Catherine Street; Daryl Pullman
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D F Easton; D Ford; D T Bishop
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Is uptake of genetic testing for colorectal cancer influenced by knowledge of insurance implications?

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Christine M van Vliet; David M Studdert; Judith A Maskiell; Finlay A Macrae; D James St John; Clara L Gaff; Mary Anne Young; Melissa C Southey; Graham G Giles; Doreen A Rosenthal; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2009-09-07       Impact factor: 7.738

9.  Beliefs and attitudes towards participating in genetic research - a population based cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Samantha M Kerath; Gila Klein; Marlena Kern; Iuliana Shapira; Jennifer Witthuhn; Nicole Norohna; Myriam Kline; Farisha Baksh; Peter Gregersen; Emanuela Taioli
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Biobanking from the patient perspective.

Authors:  Derick Mitchell; Jan Geissler; Alison Parry-Jones; Hans Keulen; Doris C Schmitt; Rosaria Vavassori; Balwir Matharoo-Ball
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2015-06-25
View more
  4 in total

1.  Stakeholder attitudes towards establishing a national genomics registry of inherited cancer predisposition: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Melissa Monnik; Rachel Austin; Cassandra Nichols; Elisa Cops; Lucinda Salmon; Amanda B Spurdle; Finlay Macrae; Natalie Taylor; Nicholas Pachter; Paul James; Rajneesh Kaur
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-11-02

Review 2.  Australia: regulating genomic data sharing to promote public trust.

Authors:  Lisa Eckstein; Donald Chalmers; Christine Critchley; Ruthie Jeanneret; Rebekah McWhirter; Jane Nielsen; Margaret Otlowski; Dianne Nicol
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 4.132

3.  Dynamic consent and personalised medicine.

Authors:  Liza Goncharov; Hanna Suominen; Matthew Cook
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 12.776

4.  The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review.

Authors:  Lidia Luna Puerta; Will Kendall; Bethan Davies; Sophie Day; Helen Ward
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 3.318

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.