Literature DB >> 29471711

Enhancing Autonomy in Biobank Decisions: Too Much of a Good Thing?

Phoebe B Mitchell1, Sonja I Ziniel2,3,4, Sarah K Savage5, Kurt D Christensen6, Elissa R Weitzman6,7, Robert C Green6,8, Noelle L Huntington6,7, Debra J Mathews1, Ingrid A Holm6,7.   

Abstract

The opportunity to receive individual research results (IRRs) in accordance with personal preferences may incentivize biobank participation and maximize perceived benefit. This trial investigated the relationship between parents' preferences and intent to participate (ITP) in biobank research utilizing their child's genetic information. We randomized parents of pediatric patients to four hypothetical biobanks, one of which employed a preference-setting model for return of results regarding their child. ITP was highest among those desiring all types of IRRs (93.3%) and decreased as participants became increasingly selective with their preferences ( p < .0001). We demonstrated that most parents would participate in a biobank that allows for preference setting; however, those who set preferences to receive a narrower set of IRRs are less likely to participate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bioethics; biorepositories/biobanks; children and adolescent/pediatrics; genetic research; return of results

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29471711      PMCID: PMC8793343          DOI: 10.1177/1556264617753483

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  25 in total

1.  Attitudes of the general public towards the disclosure of individual research results and incidental findings from biobank genomic research in Australia.

Authors:  J Fleming; C Critchley; M Otlowski; C Stewart; I Kerridge
Journal:  Intern Med J       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.048

Review 2.  Genes, environment and the value of prospective cohort studies.

Authors:  Teri A Manolio; Joan E Bailey-Wilson; Francis S Collins
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Public Attitudes toward Consent and Data Sharing in Biobank Research: A Large Multi-site Experimental Survey in the US.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Kyle B Brothers; Nathaniel D Mercaldo; Ellen Wright Clayton; Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Sharon A Aufox; Murray H Brilliant; Diego Campos; David S Carrell; John Connolly; Pat Conway; Stephanie M Fullerton; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Carol R Horowitz; Gail P Jarvik; David Kaufman; Terrie E Kitchner; Rongling Li; Evette J Ludman; Catherine A McCarty; Jennifer B McCormick; Valerie D McManus; Melanie F Myers; Aaron Scrol; Janet L Williams; Martha J Shrubsole; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Maureen E Smith; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  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

6.  Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Michael J Bamshad; Holly K Tabor
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 2.802

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.  Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: The REVEAL Study.

Authors:  Serena Chao; J Scott Roberts; Theresa M Marteau; Rebecca Silliman; L Adrienne Cupples; Robert C Green
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.703

9.  Parental Perspectives on a Pediatric Human Non-Subjects Biobank.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  AJOB Prim Res       Date:  2012-06-19

10.  Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study.

Authors:  Juli Murphy Bollinger; Joan Scott; Rachel Dvoskin; David Kaufman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  3 in total

1.  Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Mwenza Blell; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lorraine Cowley; Stephanie O M Dyke; Clara Gaff; Robert Green; Alison Hall; Amber L Johns; Bartha M Knoppers; Stephanie Mulrine; Christine Patch; Eva Winkler; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Tygerberg Research Ubuntu-Inspired Community Engagement Model: Integrating Community Engagement into Genomic Biobanking.

Authors:  Keymanthri Moodley; Chad Beyer
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 3.  Clinical utility of genomic sequencing: a measurement toolkit.

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; David Dimmock; David Bick; John W Belmont; Robert C Green; Brendan Lanpher; Vaidehi Jobanputra; Roberto Mendoza; Shashi Kulkarni; Megan E Grove; Stacie L Taylor; Euan Ashley
Journal:  NPJ Genom Med       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 8.617

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.