Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 99, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 2128-2134

  Murphy, Juli ^a   Scott, Joan ^a   Kaufman, David ^a   Geller, Gail ^b   LeRoy, Lisa ^c   Hudson, Kathy ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c ABT ASSOCIATES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; GENETIC DATABASE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN GENETICS; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; REVIEW;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; PUBLIC OPINION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 72249092345     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: 15410048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.157099     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research involving human biological materials: Ethical issues and policy guidance. Available at: http://www. bioethics.gov/reports/past-commissions/nbac-human-part.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2009.
2. Berg JW, Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Parker LS. Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001.
3. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Available at: http://ohsr.od.nih. gov/ guidelines/belmont.html. Accessed June 29, 2009.
4. World Health Organization. Proposed international guidelines on ethical issues in medical genetics and genetic services. Available at: http://www.who. int/genomics/publications/en/index1. html. Accessed June 29, 2009.
5. 45 CFR §46.116(a) (1991).
6. Greely HT. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2007;8:343-364.
7. Ursin LO. Biobank research and the right to privacy. Theor Med Bioeth. 2008;29:267-285.
8. UK Biobank Web site. Available at: http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk. Accessed June 29, 2009.
9. Northwestern University. NUgene Project Web site. Available at: www. nugene.org. Accessed June 29, 2009.
10. Frequently asked questions. Center for Applied Genomics Web site. Available at: www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/ division/generic.jsp?id=84933. Accessed June 29, 2009.
11. Kaiser Permanente Division of Research. Research program on genes, environment, and health. Available at: http://www.dor.kaiser.org/external/ Home-Default.aspx. Accessed June 29, 2009.
12. UK Human Genetics Commission. Inside information: balancing interests in the use of personal genetic data. Available at: http://www.hgc.gov.uk/client/ document.asp?DocId=19. Accessed June 29, 2009.
13. Elger BS, Caplan AL. Consent and anonymization in research involving bio-banks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep. 2006;7:661-666.
14. 45 CFR §46.102(f) (1991).
15. 45 CFR §46.116(c)(2) (1991).
16. Pulley JM, Brace MM, Bernard GR, Masys DR. Attitudes and perceptions of patients towards methods of establishing a DNA biobank. Cell Tissue Bank. 2008;9:55-65.
17. Beskow LM, Dean E. Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants' understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:1440-1451.
18. Hoeyer K, Olofsson BO, Mjorndal T, Lynoe N. Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. Scand J Public Health. 2004; 32:224-229.
19. Design Considerations for a Potential United States Population-Based Cohort to Determine the Relationships Among Genes, Environment, and Health: Recommendations of an Expert Panel. Bethesda, MD: National Human Genome Research Institute; 2004.
20. Collins FS. The case for a US prospective cohort study of genes and environment. Nature. 2004;429:475-477. (Pubitemid 38715143)
21. Manolio TA, Bailey-Wilson JE, Collins FS. Genes, environment and the value of prospective cohort studies. Nat Rev Genet. 2006;7:812-820. (Pubitemid 44413225)
22. Collins FS, Manolio TA. Merging and emerging cohorts: necessary but not sufficient. Nature. 2007;445:259. (Pubitemid 46122800)
23. Proposed study video. Genetics and Public Policy Center Web site. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/user/ DNApolicy. Accessed June 29, 2009.
24. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth. 2008;8:36-43.
25. NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software [computer program]. Version 7. Doncaster, Victoria, Australia: QSR International; 2006.
26. Kaufman DJ, Geller G, LeRoy L, Murphy JA, Scott J, Hudson K. Ethical implications of including children in a large biobank for genetic-epidemiologic research: a qualitative study of public opinion. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med. 2008;148:31-39. (Pubitemid 351294850)
27. Baker LC, Bundorf MK, Singer S, Wagner TH. Validity of the Survey of Health and Internet and Knowledge Network's panel and sampling. Available at: http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ ganp/docs/Appendix%20Survey% 20of%20Health%20and%20the% 20Internet.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2009.
28. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large cohort study. Genet Med. 2008;10:831-839.
29. SPSS [computer program]. Version 16.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc; 2008.
30. Research Triangle Institute. SUDAAN Version 9.0 Online Reference Manual. Available at: http://www.rti.org/ sudaan/onlinehelp/flashhelp/wf-njs.htm. Accessed June 29, 2009.
31. Kohane IS, Mandl KD, Taylor PL, Holm IA, Nigrin DJ, Kunkel LM. Medicine: reestablishing the researcher-patient compact. Science. 2007;316: 836-837.