Susan E Wallace1, José Miola2. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. sew40@le.ac.uk. 2. School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dynamic consent has been proposed as a process through which participants and patients can gain more control over how their data and samples, donated for biomedical research, are used, resulting in greater trust in researchers. It is also a way to respond to evolving data protection frameworks and new legislation. Others argue that the broad consent currently used in biobank research is ethically robust. Little empirical research with cohort study participants has been published. This research investigated the participants' opinions of adding a dynamic consent interface to their existing study. METHODS: Adult participants in the Extended Cohort for E-health, Environment and DNA (EXCEED) longitudinal cohort study who are members of the EXCEED Public and Participant Engagement Group were recruited. Four focus groups were conducted and analysed for thematic content. Discussion topics were derived from a review of the current literature on dynamic consent. RESULTS: Participants were in favour of many aspects of a dynamic consent interface, such as being able to update their information, add additional data to their records and choose withdrawal options. They were supportive provided it was simple to use and not intrusive. Participants expressed a markedly high level of trust in the study and its investigators and were unanimously happy with their current participation. No strong support was found for adding a dynamic consent interface to EXCEED. CONCLUSIONS: Trust in the study researchers was the strongest theme found. Openness and good data security were needed to retain their trust. While happy to discuss dynamic consent, participants were satisfied with the current study arrangements. There were indications that changing the study might unnecessarily disturb their trust. This raised the question of whether there are contexts where dynamic consent is more appropriate than others. This study was limited by the small number of participants who were committed to the study and biased towards it. More research is needed to fully understand the potential impact of adding a dynamic consent interface to an existing cohort study.
BACKGROUND: Dynamic consent has been proposed as a process through which participants and patients can gain more control over how their data and samples, donated for biomedical research, are used, resulting in greater trust in researchers. It is also a way to respond to evolving data protection frameworks and new legislation. Others argue that the broad consent currently used in biobank research is ethically robust. Little empirical research with cohort study participants has been published. This research investigated the participants' opinions of adding a dynamic consent interface to their existing study. METHODS: Adult participants in the Extended Cohort for E-health, Environment and DNA (EXCEED) longitudinal cohort study who are members of the EXCEED Public and Participant Engagement Group were recruited. Four focus groups were conducted and analysed for thematic content. Discussion topics were derived from a review of the current literature on dynamic consent. RESULTS:Participants were in favour of many aspects of a dynamic consent interface, such as being able to update their information, add additional data to their records and choose withdrawal options. They were supportive provided it was simple to use and not intrusive. Participants expressed a markedly high level of trust in the study and its investigators and were unanimously happy with their current participation. No strong support was found for adding a dynamic consent interface to EXCEED. CONCLUSIONS: Trust in the study researchers was the strongest theme found. Openness and good data security were needed to retain their trust. While happy to discuss dynamic consent, participants were satisfied with the current study arrangements. There were indications that changing the study might unnecessarily disturb their trust. This raised the question of whether there are contexts where dynamic consent is more appropriate than others. This study was limited by the small number of participants who were committed to the study and biased towards it. More research is needed to fully understand the potential impact of adding a dynamic consent interface to an existing cohort study.
Authors: Jane Kaye; Liam Curren; Nick Anderson; Kelly Edwards; Stephanie M Fullerton; Nadja Kanellopoulou; David Lund; Daniel G MacArthur; Deborah Mascalzoni; James Shepherd; Patrick L Taylor; Sharon F Terry; Stefan F Winter Journal: Nat Rev Genet Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 53.242
Authors: Cathie Sudlow; John Gallacher; Naomi Allen; Valerie Beral; Paul Burton; John Danesh; Paul Downey; Paul Elliott; Jane Green; Martin Landray; Bette Liu; Paul Matthews; Giok Ong; Jill Pell; Alan Silman; Alan Young; Tim Sprosen; Tim Peakman; Rory Collins Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Hawys Williams; Karen Spencer; Caroline Sanders; David Lund; Edgar A Whitley; Jane Kaye; William G Dixon Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2015-01-13
Authors: M K Javaid; L Forestier-Zhang; L Watts; A Turner; C Ponte; H Teare; D Gray; N Gray; R Popert; J Hogg; J Barrett; R Pinedo-Villanueva; C Cooper; R Eastell; N Bishop; R Luqmani; P Wordsworth; J Kaye Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Joel E Pacyna; Jennifer B McCormick; Janet E Olson; Erin M Winkler; Josh T Bublitz; Matthew A Hathcock; Richard R Sharp Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Cristian Pattaro; Martin Gögele; Deborah Mascalzoni; Roberto Melotti; Christine Schwienbacher; Alessandro De Grandi; Luisa Foco; Yuri D'Elia; Barbara Linder; Christian Fuchsberger; Cosetta Minelli; Clemens Egger; Lisa S Kofink; Stefano Zanigni; Torsten Schäfer; Maurizio F Facheris; Sigurður V Smárason; Alessandra Rossini; Andrew A Hicks; Helmuth Weiss; Peter P Pramstaller Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Jan Piasecki; Ewa Walkiewicz-Żarek; Justyna Figas-Skrzypulec; Anna Kordecka; Vilius Dranseika Journal: Med Health Care Philos Date: 2021-06-19