BACKGROUND: Online study recruitment is increasingly popular, but we know little about the decision making that goes into joining studies in this manner. In GeneScreen, a genomic screening study that utilized online education and consent, we investigated participants' perceived ease when deciding to join and their understanding of key study features. METHODS: Individuals were recruited via mailings that directed them to a website where they could learn more about GeneScreen, consent to participate, and complete a survey. RESULTS: Participants found it easy to decide to join GeneScreen and had a good understanding of study features. Multiple regression analyses revealed that ease of deciding to join was related to confidence in one's genetic self-efficacy, limited concerns about genetic screening, trust in and lack of frustration using the website, and the ability to spend a limited time on the website. Understanding of study features was related to using the Internet more frequently and attaining more information about GeneScreen conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The ease of deciding to join a genomic screening study and comprehension of its key features should be treated as different phenomena in research and practice. There is a need for a more nuanced understanding of how individuals respond to web-based consent information.
BACKGROUND: Online study recruitment is increasingly popular, but we know little about the decision making that goes into joining studies in this manner. In GeneScreen, a genomic screening study that utilized online education and consent, we investigated participants' perceived ease when deciding to join and their understanding of key study features. METHODS: Individuals were recruited via mailings that directed them to a website where they could learn more about GeneScreen, consent to participate, and complete a survey. RESULTS:Participants found it easy to decide to join GeneScreen and had a good understanding of study features. Multiple regression analyses revealed that ease of deciding to join was related to confidence in one's genetic self-efficacy, limited concerns about genetic screening, trust in and lack of frustration using the website, and the ability to spend a limited time on the website. Understanding of study features was related to using the Internet more frequently and attaining more information about GeneScreen conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The ease of deciding to join a genomic screening study and comprehension of its key features should be treated as different phenomena in research and practice. There is a need for a more nuanced understanding of how individuals respond to web-based consent information.
Authors: Sharon Hensley Alford; Colleen M McBride; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Karl Desch; Jun Li; Scott Kim; Naomi Laventhal; Kristen Metzger; David Siemieniak; David Ginsburg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mary Dixon-Woods; Richard E Ashcroft; Clare J Jackson; Martin D Tobin; Joelle Kivits; Paul R Burton; Nilesh J Samani Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2007-09-29 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Steven M Christiansen; Deanna Kurz; Diane K King; Tim Woolley; Andrew J Faber; Paul A Estabrooks; Lisa Strycker; Deborah Toobert; Jennifer Dickman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Katie L Lewis; Paul K J Han; Gillian W Hooker; William M P Klein; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Della Brown White; Saskia C Sanderson; Isaac M Lipkus; Gerold Bepler; Lori A Bastian; Colleen M McBride Journal: Genet Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Holly L Peay; Angela You Gwaltney; Rebecca Moultrie; Heidi Cope; Beth Lincoln- Boyea; Katherine Ackerman Porter; Martin Duparc; Amir A Alexander; Barbara B Biesecker; Aminah Isiaq; Jennifer Check; Lisa Gehtland; Donald B Bailey; Nancy M P King Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Erin Rothwell; Seema K Shah; Devan M Duenas; Hannah Lewis; Kristin Muessig; Douglas J Opel; Katrina A B Goddard; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Kathryn M Porter; Devan M Duenas; Claudia Guerra; Galen Joseph; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Kelly J Shipman; Jake Allen; Donna Eubanks; Tia L Kauffman; Nangel M Lindberg; Katherine Anderson; Jamilyn M Zepp; Marian J Gilmore; Kathleen F Mittendorf; Elizabeth Shuster; Kristin R Muessig; Briana Arnold; Katrina A B Goddard; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2020-09-26
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Kathryn M Porter; Devan M Duenas; Erin Sullivan; Maya Rowland; Brian E Saelens; Benjamin S Wilfond; Seema K Shah Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01
Authors: Rita M Butterfield; James P Evans; Christine Rini; Kristine J Kuczynski; Margaret Waltz; R Jean Cadigan; Katrina A B Goddard; Kristin R Muessig; Gail E Henderson Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Emily Skelton; Nicholas Drey; Mary Rutherford; Susan Ayers; Christina Malamateniou Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2020-09-13 Impact factor: 4.046