Literature DB >> 30413662

"As Long as You Ask": A Qualitative Study of Biobanking Consent-Oncology Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Attitudes, Motivations, and Experiences-the B-PPAE Study.

Sonia Yip1, Jennifer Fleming2, Heather L Shepherd3, Adam Walczak4, Jonathan Clark5, Phyllis Butow6.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Consent to biobanking remains controversial, with little empirical data to guide policy and practice. This study aimed to explore the attitudes, motivations, and concerns of both oncology patients and health care professionals (HCPs) regarding biobanking.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with oncology patients and HCPs purposively selected from five Australian hospitals. Patients were invited to give biobanking consent as part of a clinical trial and/or for future research were eligible. HCPs were eligible if involved in consenting patients to biobanking or to donate specimens to clinical trials.
RESULTS: Twenty-two patients participated, with head and neck (36%) and prostate (18%) the most common cancer diagnoses; all had consented to biobanking. Twenty-two HCPs participated, from across eight cancer streams and five disciplines. Themes identified were (a) biobanking is a "no brainer"; (b) altruism or scientific enquiry; (c) trust in clinicians, science, and institutions; (d) no consent-just do it; (e) respecting patient choice ("opt-out"); (f) respectful timing of the request; (g) need for emotional/family support; (h) context of the biobanking request matters; and (i) factors for biobanking success. DISCUSSION: These findings reinforced previous findings regarding high public trust in, and support for, biobanking. An initial opt-in consent approach with the option of later opt-out was favored by patients to respect and recognize donor generosity, whereas HCPs preferred an upfront opt-out model. Factors impacting biobanking success included the context of the request for use in a trial or specific research question, pre-existing patient and HCP rapport, a local institution champion, and infrastructure. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients and health care professionals (HCPs) who experienced cancer biobanking consent were overwhelmingly supportive of biobanking. The motivations and approaches to seeking consent were largely mirrored between the groups. The findings of this study support the opt-in model of biobanking favored by patients; however, HCPs preferred an opt-out model. Both groups recognize the importance of making the request for biobanking at an appropriate time, preferably with emotional or family support, and respecting the timing of the request and privacy of the patient. Biobanking success can be promoted by hospital departments with a research focus by identifying an institutional biobanking champion and ensuring local infrastructure is available. © AlphaMed Press 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attitudes; Biological specimen banks; Health care personnel; Informed consent; Oncology; Patients

Year:  2018        PMID: 30413662      PMCID: PMC6656517          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0233

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  36 in total

1.  Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research.

Authors:  Linus Johnsson; Gert Helgesson; Thorunn Rafnar; Ingibjorg Halldorsdottir; Kee-Seng Chia; Stefan Eriksson; Mats G Hansson
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-07-21       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Predicting intention to biobank: a national survey.

Authors:  Christine R Critchley; Dianne Nicol; Margaret F A Otlowski; Mark J A Stranger
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 3.367

3.  Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine.

Authors:  D M Roden; J M Pulley; M A Basford; G R Bernard; E W Clayton; J R Balser; D R Masys
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  "Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose.

Authors:  Carlo Petrini
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Whose body is it anyway? Disputes over body tissue in a biotechnology age.

Authors:  L Andrews; D Nelkin
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-01-03       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics.

Authors:  L M Beskow; W Burke; J F Merz; P A Barr; S Terry; V B Penchaszadeh; L O Gostin; M Gwinn; M J Khoury
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Contributing to research via biobanks: what it means to cancer patients.

Authors:  Isabelle Pellegrini; Christian Chabannon; Julien Mancini; Frederic Viret; Norbert Vey; Claire Julian-Reynier
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Introducing research initiatives into healthcare: what do doctors think?

Authors:  Lucy Wyld; Sian Smith; Nicholas J Hawkins; Janet Long; Robyn L Ward
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 9.  Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era.

Authors:  Don Chalmers; Dianne Nicol; Jane Kaye; Jessica Bell; Alastair V Campbell; Calvin W L Ho; Kazuto Kato; Jusaku Minari; Chih-Hsing Ho; Colin Mitchell; Fruzsina Molnár-Gábor; Margaret Otlowski; Daniel Thiel; Stephanie M Fullerton; Tess Whitton
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models.

Authors:  Christian M Simon; Jamie L'heureux; Jeffrey C Murray; Patricia Winokur; George Weiner; Elizabeth Newbury; Laura Shinkunas; Bridget Zimmerman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  1 in total

1.  The use of personal health information outside the circle of care: consent preferences of patients from an academic health care institution.

Authors:  Sarah Tosoni; Indu Voruganti; Katherine Lajkosz; Flavio Habal; Patricia Murphy; Rebecca K S Wong; Donald Willison; Carl Virtanen; Ann Heesters; Fei-Fei Liu
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 2.652

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.