Literature DB >> 31738093

Trust in Centralized Large-Scale Data Repository: A Qualitative Analysis.

Reinder Broekstra1, Judith Aris-Meijer1, Els Maeckelberghe1, Ronald Stolk1, Sabine Otten2.   

Abstract

Exponential increases in digital data and calls for participation in human research raise questions about when and why individuals voluntarily provide personal data. We conducted 36 in-depth interviews with ex-participants, participants, and nonparticipants in a biobank to identify key factors influencing trust in centralized large-scale data repository for human research. Our findings indicated that trust depends strongly on whether such data repository benefits the public, the interests of data collectors, the characteristics of the collected data, and application of informed consent for retaining control over personal data. Concerns about the aims and range of data repository appeared to influence withdrawal of participation. Our findings underscore ethical and practical issues relating to data collection and consent procedures in human research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  big data; biorepositories/biobanks; cohort study; decision making; justice/participant selection/inclusion/recruitment; qualitative methods; the Netherlands; trust

Year:  2019        PMID: 31738093     DOI: 10.1177/1556264619888365

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


  6 in total

1.  Communicating With Diverse Patients About Participating in a Biobank: A Randomized Multisite Study Comparing Electronic and Face-to-Face Informed Consent Processes.

Authors:  Christian M Simon; Kai Wang; Laura A Shinkunas; Daniel T Stein; Paul Meissner; Maureen Smith; Rebecca Pentz; David W Klein
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  Motives of contributing personal data for health research: (non-)participation in a Dutch biobank.

Authors:  R Broekstra; E L M Maeckelberghe; J L Aris-Meijer; R P Stolk; S Otten
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 2.652

3.  Motives for withdrawal of participation in biobanking and participants' willingness to allow linkages of their data.

Authors:  Reinder Broekstra; Judith L Aris-Meijer; Els L M Maeckelberghe; Ronald P Stolk; Sabine Otten
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Exploring how biobanks communicate the possibility of commercial access and its associated benefits and risks in participant documents.

Authors:  G Samuel; F Hardcastle; R Broekstra; A Lucassen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 2.834

5.  Ten years of dynamic consent in the CHRIS study: informed consent as a dynamic process.

Authors:  Deborah Mascalzoni; Roberto Melotti; Cristian Pattaro; Peter Paul Pramstaller; Martin Gögele; Alessandro De Grandi; Roberta Biasiotto
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-09-05       Impact factor: 5.351

6.  «If you give them your little finger, they'll tear off your entire arm»: losing trust in biobank research.

Authors:  Lars Ursin; Borgunn Ytterhus; Erik Christensen; John-Arne Skolbekken
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2020-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.