Literature DB >> 29348694

Effect of deliberation on the public's attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research.

Tom Tomlinson1, Raymond G De Vries2, H Myra Kim3, Linda Gordon4, Kerry A Ryan2, Chris D Krenz2, Scott Jewell5, Scott Y H Kim6,7.   

Abstract

In this study, we evaluate the effect of education and deliberation on the willingness of members of the public to donate tissue to biobank research and on their attitudes regarding various biobank consent policies. Participants were randomly assigned to a democratic deliberation (DD) group, an education group that received only written materials, and a control group. Participants completed a survey before the deliberation and two surveys post-deliberation: one on (or just after) the deliberation day, and one 4 weeks later. Subjects were asked to rate 5 biobank consent policies as acceptable (or not) and to identify the best and worst policies. Analyses compared acceptability of different policy options and changes in attitudes across the three groups. After deliberation, subjects in the DD group were less likely to find broad consent (defined here as consent for the use of donations in an unspecified range of future research studies, subject to content and process restrictions) and study-by-study consent acceptable. The DD group was also significantly less likely to endorse broad consent as the best policy (OR = 0.34), and more likely to prefer alternative consent options. These results raise ethical challenges to the current widespread reliance on broad consent in biobank research, but do not support study-by-study consent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29348694      PMCID: PMC5838972          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0063-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  26 in total

1.  The Michigan BioTrust for Health: using dried bloodspots for research to benefit the community while respecting the individual.

Authors:  Denise Chrysler; Harry McGee; Janice Bach; Ed Goldman; Peter D Jacobson
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks.

Authors:  Kieran C O'Doherty; Michael M Burgess; Kelly Edwards; Richard P Gallagher; Alice K Hawkins; Jane Kaye; Veronica McCaffrey; David E Winickoff
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2011-07-02       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank.

Authors:  Tom Tomlinson; Raymond De Vries; Kerry Ryan; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Nicole Lehpamer; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research.

Authors:  S Y H Kim; H M Kim; D S Knopman; R De Vries; L Damschroder; P S Appelbaum
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 9.910

5.  Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions.

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

6.  Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public's perspectives.

Authors:  Diego S Silva; Jennifer L Gibson; Ann Robertson; Cécile M Bensimon; Sachin Sahni; Laena Maunula; Maxwell J Smith
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

Authors:  Rebekah E McWhirter; Christine R Critchley; Dianne Nicol; Don Chalmers; Tess Whitton; Margaret Otlowski; Michael M Burgess; Joanne L Dickinson
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2014-11-20

8.  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

9.  Understanding the Public's Reservations about Broad Consent and Study-By-Study Consent for Donations to a Biobank: Results of a National Survey.

Authors:  Raymond Gene De Vries; Tom Tomlinson; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Chris Krenz; Diana Haggerty; Kerry A Ryan; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States.

Authors:  Nanibaa' A Garrison; Nila A Sathe; Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Ingrid A Holm; Saskia C Sanderson; Maureen E Smith; Melissa L McPheeters; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effect of Public Deliberation on Patient Attitudes Regarding Consent and Data Use in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

Authors:  Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle D Jones; Chris Krenz; Michele Gornick; Rebecca Spence; Raymond De Vries; Sarah T Hawley; Robin Zon; Sage Bolte; Navid Sadeghi; Richard L Schilsky; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Eliciting patient views on the allocation of limited healthcare resources: a deliberation on hepatitis C treatment in the Veterans Health Administration.

Authors:  Akbar K Waljee; Kerry A Ryan; Chris D Krenz; George N Ioannou; Lauren A Beste; Monica A Tincopa; Sameer D Saini; Grace L Su; Maria E Arasim; Patti T Roman; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Raymond De Vries
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  What can data trusts for health research learn from participatory governance in biobanks?

Authors:  Richard Milne; Annie Sorbie; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 5.926

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.