Literature DB >> 29385589

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

Deborah Goodman1, Deborah Bowen2, Lari Wenzel3, Paris Tehrani1, Francis Fernando1, Araksi Khacheryan1, Farihah Chowdhury1, Catherine O Johnson1, Karen Edwards1.   

Abstract

Observational genome-wide association studies require large sample sizes. Evaluating the interplay between genomic, environmental, and lifestyle factors can require even larger sample sizes. The All of Us Research Program will recruit 1 million participants to facilitate research on genomic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Integrating participant preferences into the research process is a new paradigm and a necessary component of the All of Us Research Program. The purpose of the study is to summarize quantitative studies of participant preferences related to participation in observational genomic research studies, starting with consent through return of results. Integrating this information into the conduct of genomic studies may benefit participants, and improve participant satisfaction, recruitment, and retention. We conducted a systematic review of the literature regarding participant views related to reconsent and broad consent, use of de-identified data, contribution of data to a biorepository, risk of identification, return of individual genetic results, and motivation for participation in genomic studies. Twenty-three articles met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Study results found that most participants support broad consent; however, significant differences related to reconsent preferences have been shown by gender and age. Most participants support the return of individual genomic results and do not feel it is necessary to maintain a link to their de-identified data. Reasons given for joining research studies varied by population source. These findings, in addition to the knowledge that participants are more accepting of broad informed consent methods when the rationale is explained, can assist in developing guidelines for future observational genomic research. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Broad consent; De-identification; Informed consent; Participation; Reconsent; Return of results

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29385589      PMCID: PMC6065547          DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibx056

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


  37 in total

1.  Considerations and costs of disclosing study findings to research participants.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Chris Skedgel; Charles Weijer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-04-27       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Letting the gene out of the bottle: a comment on returning individual research results to participants.

Authors:  Pilar N Ossorio
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

3.  Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results.

Authors:  J O'Daniel; S B Haga
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Genetic research participation in a young adult community sample.

Authors:  Carla L Storr; Flora Or; William W Eaton; Nicholas Ialongo
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-06-20

5.  The US Cancer Moonshot initiative.

Authors:  C Marjorie Aelion; Collins O Airhihenbuwa; Sonia Alemagno; Robert W Amler; Donna K Arnett; Andrew Balas; Stefano Bertozzi; Craig H Blakely; Eric Boerwinkle; Paul Brandt-Rauf; Pierre M Buekens; G Thomas Chandler; Rowland W Chang; Jane E Clark; Paul D Cleary; James W Curran; Susan J Curry; Ana V Diez Roux; Robert Dittus; Edward F Ellerbeck; Ayman El-Mohandes; Michael P Eriksen; Paul C Erwin; Gregory Evans; John R Finnegan; Linda P Fried; Howard Frumkin; Sandro Galea; David C Goff; Lynn R Goldman; Tomas R Guilarte; Ralph Rivera-Gutiérrez; Paul K Halverson; Gregory A Hand; Cynthia M Harris; Cheryl G Healton; Nils Hennig; Jody Heymann; David Hunter; Wenke Hwang; Resa M Jones; Michael J Klag; Lisa M Klesges; Tim Lahey; Edward F Lawlor; Jay Maddock; William J Martin; Anthony J Mazzaschi; Max Michael; Shan D Mohammed; Philip C Nasca; David Nash; Oladele A Ogunseitan; Ronald A Perez; Michael Perri; Donna J Petersen; Darleen V Peterson; Martin Philbert; Jennifer Pinto-Martin; James M Raczynski; Gary E Raskob; Barbara K Rimer; Louise Ann Rohrbach; Laura L Rudkin; Laura Siminoff; José Szapocznik; Dennis Thombs; Mohammad R Torabi; Robert M Weiler; Terrie Fox Wetle; Phillip L Williams; Randy Wykoff; Jun Ying
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  An investigation of patients' motivations for their participation in genetics-related research.

Authors:  N Hallowell; S Cooke; G Crawford; A Lucassen; M Parker; C Snowdon
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  Communication of biobanks' research results: what do (potential) participants want?

Authors:  Tineke M Meulenkamp; Sjef K Gevers; Jasper A Bovenberg; Gerard H Koppelman; Astrid van Hylckama Vlieg; Ellen M A Smets
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  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

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.  Evaluating the consent preferences of UK research volunteers for genetic and clinical studies.

Authors:  Susan E Kelly; Timothy D Spector; Lynn F Cherkas; Barbara Prainsack; Juliette M Harris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  10 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.  Public Attitudes Toward Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Grayson L Ruhl; James W Hazel; Ellen Wright Clayton; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

3.  Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Mary A Majumder; Angela G Villanueva; Jessica Bardill; Juli M Bollinger; Eric Boerwinkle; Tania Bubela; Patricia A Deverka; Barbara J Evans; Nanibaa' A Garrison; David Glazer; Melissa M Goldstein; Henry T Greely; Scott D Kahn; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; J Mark Lambright; John E Mattison; Christopher O'Donnell; Arti K Rai; Laura L Rodriguez; Tania Simoncelli; Sharon F Terry; Adrian M Thorogood; Michael S Watson; John T Wilbanks; Robert Cook-Deegan
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Public interest in unexpected genomic findings: a survey study identifying aspects of sequencing attitudes that influence preferences.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Daryl Pullman; Charlene Simmonds; Proton Rahman
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-01-21

5.  A survey of aortic disease biorepository participants' preferences for return of research genetic results.

Authors:  Jamie Love-Nichols; Wendy R Uhlmann; Patricia Arscott; Cristen Willer; Whitney Hornsby; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-12-14       Impact factor: 2.717

6.  Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants.

Authors:  Adelyn Beil; Whitney Hornsby; Cristen Willer; J Scott Roberts; Wendy R Uhlmann; Rajani Aatre; Patricia Arscott; Brooke Wolford; Kim A Eagle; Bo Yang; Jennifer McNamara
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.063

7.  Public willingness to participate in personalized health research and biobanking: A large-scale Swiss survey.

Authors:  Caroline Brall; Claudia Berlin; Marcel Zwahlen; Kelly E Ormond; Matthias Egger; Effy Vayena
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Willingness to Share Wearable Device Data for Research Among Mechanical Turk Workers: Web-Based Survey Study.

Authors:  Casey Overby Taylor; Natalie Flaks-Manov; Shankar Ramesh; Eun Kyoung Choe
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Public preferences towards data management and governance in Swiss biobanks: results from a nationwide survey.

Authors:  Caroline Brall; Claudia Berlin; Marcel Zwahlen; Effy Vayena; Matthias Egger; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 3.006

10.  Developing model biobanking consent language: what matters to prospective participants?

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Catherine M Hammack-Aviran; Kathleen M Brelsford
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 4.615

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.