Literature DB >> 29385588

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

Deborah Goodman1, Catherine O Johnson1, Deborah Bowen2, Megan Smith1, Lari Wenzel1, Karen L Edwards1.   

Abstract

Data sharing of large genomic databases and biorepositories provides researchers adequately powered samples to advance the goals of precision medicine. Data sharing may also introduce, however, participant privacy concerns including possible reidentification. This study compares views of research participants, genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals regarding concerns about the use of de-identified data. An online survey was completed by cancer patients, their relatives, and controls from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry (n = 450) querying views about potential harms with the use of de-identified data. This was compared to our previous online national survey of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208). Researchers were less likely to feel that participants would be personally identified or harmed from a study involving de-identified data or feel that a federal agency might compel researchers to disclose information about research participants. Compared to genetic researchers, IRB professionals and participants were significantly more likely to express that personal identification or harm was likely or that researchers might be forced to disclose information by a federal agency. An understanding of the differences in views regarding possible harm from the use of de-identified data between these three important stakeholder groups is necessary to move forward with genomic research. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  De-identification; Genomic; Linkage; Preferences

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29385588      PMCID: PMC6065539          DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibx054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Behav Med        ISSN: 1613-9860            Impact factor:   3.046


  16 in total

1.  Broad data sharing in genetic research: views of institutional review board professionals.

Authors:  Amy A Lemke; Maureen E Smith; Wendy A Wolf; Susan Brown Trinidad
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2011 May-Jun

2.  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

3.  Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers.

Authors:  K L Edwards; A A Lemke; S B Trinidad; S M Lewis; H Starks; M T Quinn Griffin; G L Wiesner
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 2.000

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

Authors:  Deborah Goodman; Catherine O Johnson; Deborah Bowen; Megan Smith; Lari Wenzel; Karen Edwards
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-04-05

5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  Genome privacy: challenges, technical approaches to mitigate risk, and ethical considerations in the United States.

Authors:  Shuang Wang; Xiaoqian Jiang; Siddharth Singh; Rebecca Marmor; Luca Bonomi; Dov Fox; Michelle Dow; Lucila Ohno-Machado
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 5.691

8.  Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants.

Authors:  Susan Brown Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Julie M Bares; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: a conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions.

Authors:  Daryl Pullman; Holly Etchegary; Katherine Gallagher; Kathleen Hodgkinson; Montgomery Keough; David Morgan; Catherine Street
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Genetics researchers' and IRB professionals' attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis.

Authors:  Karen L Edwards; Amy A Lemke; Susan B Trinidad; Susan M Lewis; Helene Starks; Katherine W Snapinn; Mary Quinn Griffin; Georgia L Wiesner; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  2 in total

1.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Clinical and Public Health Genomics: Opportunities for translational behavioral medicine research, practice, and policy.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Michael J Hall; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Research Participant Views regarding Qualitative Data Sharing.

Authors:  Jessica Mozersky; Meredith Parsons; Heidi Walsh; Kari Baldwin; Tristan McIntosh; James M DuBois
Journal:  Ethics Hum Res       Date:  2020-03
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.