Literature DB >> 35834113

Variation among DNA banking consent forms: points for clinicians to bank on.

Samuel J Huang1, Laura M Amendola2, Darci L Sternen3.   

Abstract

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) banking is an important laboratory service that preserves the option of future genetic testing. DNA bank consent forms are a critical tool to facilitate thorough and valid informed consent. The objectives of this study were to assess the level of consistency of current clinical DNA banking consent forms with the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidance and to explore variation among the forms. The content analysis matrix included key points identified from the ASHG and ACMG documents (including benefits/risks, sample storage, access, disposition, and communication) and additional points beyond the ASHG and ACMG documents identified from the consent forms themselves during the analysis process. Forms were assessed for language addressing each point. Five consent forms were identified and analyzed for twelve key points and eight additional points. The average consistency for key points was 10.8/12 (range 8/12 to 12/12). The range for additional points was 1/8 to 5/8. There was variation across forms in the details provided related to key and additional points. Gaps in clinical DNA banking consent forms are barriers to achieving informed consent. Clinicians can consider the consent key and additional points discussed here to supplement and enrich their clinical DNA banking informed consent discussions, promote stewardship, and maximize downstream utility of banked DNA. The identification of multiple additional points beyond the ASHG and ACMG documents' key points indicates a need for this guidance to be updated.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biobanking; DNA banking; Informed consent; Stewardship

Year:  2022        PMID: 35834113      PMCID: PMC9314484          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-022-00601-3

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


  29 in total

1.  A Diagnosis for All Rare Genetic Diseases: The Horizon and the Next Frontiers.

Authors:  Kym M Boycott; Taila Hartley; Leslie G Biesecker; Richard A Gibbs; A Micheil Innes; Olaf Riess; John Belmont; Sally L Dunwoodie; Nebojsa Jojic; Timo Lassmann; Deborah Mackay; I Karen Temple; Axel Visel; Gareth Baynam
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  "Forward-Thinking" in U.S. Biobanking.

Authors:  R Jean Cadigan; Teresa P Edwards; Dragana Lassiter; Arlene M Davis; Gail E Henderson
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-01-24

3.  The Matchmaker Exchange: a platform for rare disease gene discovery.

Authors:  Anthony A Philippakis; Danielle R Azzariti; Sergi Beltran; Anthony J Brookes; Catherine A Brownstein; Michael Brudno; Han G Brunner; Orion J Buske; Knox Carey; Cassie Doll; Sergiu Dumitriu; Stephanie O M Dyke; Johan T den Dunnen; Helen V Firth; Richard A Gibbs; Marta Girdea; Michael Gonzalez; Melissa A Haendel; Ada Hamosh; Ingrid A Holm; Lijia Huang; Matthew E Hurles; Ben Hutton; Joel B Krier; Andriy Misyura; Christopher J Mungall; Justin Paschall; Benedict Paten; Peter N Robinson; François Schiettecatte; Nara L Sobreira; Ganesh J Swaminathan; Peter E Taschner; Sharon F Terry; Nicole L Washington; Stephan Züchner; Kym M Boycott; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.878

4.  A survey of DNA diagnostic laboratories regarding DNA banking.

Authors:  J E McEwen; P R Reilly
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  The Limits of Informed Consent for an Overwhelmed Patient: Clinicians' Role in Protecting Patients and Preventing Overwhelm.

Authors:  Johan Bester; Cristie M Cole; Eric Kodish
Journal:  AMA J Ethics       Date:  2016-09-01

Review 6.  Stillbirth: Evaluation and Follow-up.

Authors:  Jessica M Page; Robert M Silver
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 2.844

7.  What do cancer patients' relatives think about addressing cancer family history and performing genetic testing in palliative care?

Authors:  Jude E Cléophat; Ana Marin; Sylvie Pelletier; Yann Joly; Pierre Gagnon; Alberte Déry; Jocelyne Chiquette; Bruno Gagnon; Louis Roy; Vasiliki Bitzas; Hermann Nabi; Michel Dorval
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  The interface of genomic information with the electronic health record: a points to consider statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Authors:  Theresa A Grebe; George Khushf; Margaret Chen; Dawn Bailey; Leslie Manace Brenman; Marc S Williams; Laurie H Seaver
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  ACMG statement. Statement on storage and use of genetic materials. American College of Medical Genetics Storage of Genetics Materials Committee.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 11.043

10.  Demographic and socioeconomic trends in DNA banking utilization in the USA.

Authors:  Joshua Prudent; Esthermarie Lopez; Donna Dorshorst; Hannah C Cox; Joann N Bodurtha
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-06-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.