Literature DB >> 33544776

Utilizing a large-scale biobanking registry to assess patient priorities and preferences for cancer research and education.

Cassandra A Hathaway1, Erin M Siegel1, Christine H Chung2, Smitha Pabbathi3, Jennifer Vidrine4, Susan Vadaparampil4,5, Shelley S Tworoger1,6.   

Abstract

Patients consented to biobanking studies typically do not specify research conducted on their samples and data. Our objective was to gauge cancer biobanking participant preferences on research topics. Patient-participants of a biobanking study at a comprehensive cancer center who had an appointment within the last 5 years, had a valid email address, and with a last known vital status of alive, were emailed a newsletter containing a link to a survey about preferences and priorities for research. The survey assessed demographics and research interest in three domains: cancer site, cancer-related topics, and issues faced by cancer patients. 37,384 participants were contacted through email to participate in the survey. 16,158 participants (43.2%) opened the email, 1,626 (4.3% overall, 10% of those who opened the email) completed the survey, and 1,291 (79.4% of those who completed the survey) selected at least one research priority. Among those who selected at least one research priorities for cancer-relevant topics, the most commonly selected were cancer treatment (66%), clinical trials (54%), and cancer prevention (53%). Similarly, the most selected priorities for cancer-related issues faced by patients were physical side effects of cancer (57%), talking to the oncologist (53%), and emotional challenges due to cancer (47%). Differences by gender were observed, with females reporting more interest in research generally. Cancer patients participating in a biobanking protocol prioritized research on treatments, prevention and side effects, which varied by gender.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33544776      PMCID: PMC7864448          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246686

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  26 in total

1.  The importance of biobanking in cancer research.

Authors:  Tania Castillo-Pelayo; Sindy Babinszky; Jodi LeBlanc; Peter H Watson
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 2.  Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Jaffee; Chi Van Dang; David B Agus; Brian M Alexander; Kenneth C Anderson; Alan Ashworth; Anna D Barker; Roshan Bastani; Sangeeta Bhatia; Jeffrey A Bluestone; Otis Brawley; Atul J Butte; Daniel G Coit; Nancy E Davidson; Mark Davis; Ronald A DePinho; Robert B Diasio; Giulio Draetta; A Lindsay Frazier; Andrew Futreal; Sam S Gambhir; Patricia A Ganz; Levi Garraway; Stanton Gerson; Sumit Gupta; James Heath; Ruth I Hoffman; Cliff Hudis; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Ramy Ibrahim; Hossein Jadvar; Brian Kavanagh; Rick Kittles; Quynh-Thu Le; Scott M Lippman; David Mankoff; Elaine R Mardis; Deborah K Mayer; Kelly McMasters; Neal J Meropol; Beverly Mitchell; Peter Naredi; Dean Ornish; Timothy M Pawlik; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Martin G Pomper; Derek Raghavan; Christine Ritchie; Sally W Schwarz; Richard Sullivan; Richard Wahl; Jedd D Wolchok; Sandra L Wong; Alfred Yung
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 41.316

3.  Biobanking for research: a survey of patient population attitudes and understanding.

Authors:  Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Michelle Wrenn; Nikki M Carroll; Heather Spencer Feigelson
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-04-20

Review 4.  Biobanking past, present and future: responsibilities and benefits.

Authors:  Yvonne G De Souza; John S Greenspan
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 4.177

5.  Qualitative study of participants' perceptions and preferences regarding research dissemination.

Authors:  Rachel S Purvis; Traci H Abraham; Christopher R Long; M Kathryn Stewart; T Scott Warmack; Pearl Anna McElfish
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2017-03-27

6.  Race, ethnicity, and linguistic isolation as determinants of participation in public health surveillance surveys.

Authors:  Michael W Link; Ali H Mokdad; Herbert F Stackhouse; Nicole T Flowers
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 2.830

Review 7.  Public Attitudes toward Biobanking of Human Biological Material for Research Purposes: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Jan Domaradzki; Jakub Pawlikowski
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Cancer patient perceptions on the ethical and legal issues related to biobanking.

Authors:  Zubin Master; Jaime O Claudio; Christen Rachul; Jean C Y Wang; Mark D Minden; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 3.063

9.  Health research participants are not receiving research results: a collaborative solution is needed.

Authors:  Christopher R Long; M Kathryn Stewart; Pearl A McElfish
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Cancer Patients and Anxiety: A Gender Perspective.

Authors:  Paula Parás-Bravo; María Paz-Zulueta; Ester Boixadera-Planas; Víctor Fradejas-Sastre; Domingo Palacios-Ceña; César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas; Cristina Alonso-Blanco
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 3.390

View more
  1 in total

1.  Associations between the Willingness to Donate Samples to Biobanks and Selected Psychological Variables.

Authors:  Jakub Pawlikowski; Michał Wiechetek; Anita Majchrowska
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 3.390

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.