Literature DB >> 32779150

Patients' decision to contribute to a biobank in the light of the patient-recruiter relationship-a qualitative study of broad consent in a hospital setting.

Francesca Bosisio1,2, Gaia Barazzetti3,4, Daria Koutaissoff5, Brenda Spencer5.   

Abstract

Findings from recent studies show that the relationship developed with the particular researcher asking for broad consent plays an important role in the participant's willingness to give consent. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in order to present a description and analysis of meetings in which broad consent took place and to examine the role of recruiters in the patients' decision-making and in building trust in the Lausanne University Hospital Institutional Biobank (BIL). Our findings suggest that patient broad consent to biobanking is strongly related to its setting. BIL recruiters' were aware of their role as ambassadors of the BIL and their responsibility towards patients. Patient interviewees were sensitive to the quality of the information delivered, the timing of the consent request and the recruiters' attitudes and behaviours, including the presence of the white coat. Participating in the BIL also seemed to reinforce the patient's self-esteem and perceived efficacy, particularly since they are themselves ill and inactive when requested to participate. Recruiters and participants report that participation may be motivated by fundamental (existential) goals. Organisational factors also affected recruiters' activity and the broad consent procedure raising several ethical issues. This qualitative study suggests that biobanking based on information-based models of decision-making might need to be re-evaluated in order to improve broad consent. Our findings have implications for the practice of broad consent and patient autonomy, as well as for the recruiters' role and training.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biobank; Broad consent; Communication in healthcare; Genomic research; Health data; Shared decision-making; Trust

Year:  2020        PMID: 32779150     DOI: 10.1007/s12687-020-00479-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  21 in total

1.  In defense of broad consent.

Authors:  Gert Helgesson
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework.

Authors:  Bernice S Elger; Arthur L Caplan
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 8.807

Review 3.  Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research?

Authors:  Mats G Hansson; Joakim Dillner; Claus R Bartram; Joyce A Carlson; Gert Helgesson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 41.316

4.  Factors influencing public participation in biobanking.

Authors:  Mamoun Ahram; Areej Othman; Manal Shahrouri; Ebtihal Mustafa
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 5.  Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent.

Authors:  Christine Grady
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research.

Authors:  Flavia M Facio; Stephanie Brooks; Johanna Loewenstein; Susannah Green; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Primary care physicians' views about gatekeeping in clinical research recruitment: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Marilys Guillemin; Rosalind McDougall; Dominique Martin; Nina Hallowell; Alison Brookes; Lynn Gillam
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2017-03-16

8.  Strong, generous support for medical research emerges from a large cohort of Swiss patients.

Authors:  Adriano Aguzzi
Journal:  Swiss Med Wkly       Date:  2017-10-22       Impact factor: 2.193

9.  Broad consent in practice: lessons learned from a hospital-based biobank for prospective research on genomic and medical data.

Authors:  Gaia Barazzetti; Francesca Bosisio; Daria Koutaissoff; Brenda Spencer
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 10.  Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice.

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Dominick Frosch; Richard Thomson; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Amy Lloyd; Paul Kinnersley; Emma Cording; Dave Tomson; Carole Dodd; Stephen Rollnick; Adrian Edwards; Michael Barry
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.