An investigation of patients' motivations for their participation in genetics-related research

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 37-45

  Hallowell, N ^a   Cooke, S ^a   Crawford, G ^b   Lucassen, A ^b   Parker, M ^c   Snowdon, C ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALTRUISM; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETICS; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH SUBJECT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALTRUISM; FEMALE; GENETIC RESEARCH; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 77951641631     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2009.029264     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005;25:873-4.
2. Dixon-Woods M Cavers D, Jackson CJ, et al. Tissue samples as gifts for research: a qualtiative study of families and professionals. Medical Law International 2008;9:131-50.
3. Tutton R. Person, property and gift: exploring languages of tissue donation. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, eds. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge, 2004:19-38.
4. Busby H. Biobanks, bioethics and concepts of donated blood in the UK. Sociol Health Illn 2006;28:850-65.
5. Nuffield Council of Bioethics. Human tissue: ethical and legal issues. London: Nuffield Council, 1995.
6. Medical Research Council. Human tissue and biological samples for use in research. London: Medical Research Council, 2001.
7. Gibbons SMC, Kaye J, Smart A, et al. Governing genetic databases: challenges facing research, regulation and practice. J Law Soc 2007;34:163-89.
8. Titmuss RM. Why give to strangers? (1971) Reprinted in: Khuse H, Singer P, eds. Bioethics: an anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006:383-6.
9. Geller G, Doksum T, Bernhardt BA, et al. Participation in breast cancer susceptibility testing protocols: influence of recruitment source, altruism, and family involvement on women's decisions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:377-83.
10. Treloar SM, Morley KI, Taylor SD, et al. Why do they do it? A pilot study towards understanding participant motivation and experience in a large genetic epidemiological study of endometriosis. Community Genet 2007;10:61-71.
11. Ponder M, Statham H, Hallowell N, et al. Genetic research on rare familial disorders: consent and the blurred boundaries between clinical service and research. J Med Ethics 2008;34:690-4.
12. Easter MM, Henderson GE, Davis AM, et al. The many meanings of care in clinical research. Sociol Health Illn 2006;28:695-712.
13. Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization: responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:1337-55.
14. Richards MPM, Ponder M, Pharoah P, et al. Issues of consent and feedback in a genetic epidemiological study of women with breast cancer. J Med Ethics 2003;29:93-6.
15. Haimes E, Whong-Barr M. Levels and styles of participation in genetic databases: a case study of the North Cumbria genetics project. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, eds. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge, 2004:57-77.
16. Hoeyer K. Ambiguous gifts: public anxiety, informed consent and biobanks. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, eds. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge, 2004:97-116.
17. Canvin K, Jacoby A. Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial. Trials 2006;7:32.
18. Hallowell N, Cooke S, Crawford G, et al. Health care professionals' and researchers' understanding of cancer genetics activities: a qualitative interview study. J Med Ethics 2009;35:113-9.
19. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. London: Sage, 1990.
20. Novas C, Rose N. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society 2000;29:485-513.
21. Hallowell N, Foster C, Eeles R, et al. Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information. J Med Ethics 2003;29:74-9.
22. Madsen SM, Holm S, Rijs P. Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: an interview study using a grounded theory approach. J Med Ethics 2007;33:234-40.
23. Dixon-Woods M, Tarrant C. Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:2215-32.
24. Abboud P-A, Heard K, Al-Marshad AA, et al. What determines whether patients are willing to participate in resuscitation studies requiring exception from informed consent? J Med Ethics 2006;32:468-72.
25. Hallowell N. Consent to genetic testing: A family affair? In: Corrigan O, Liddell K, McMillan J, et al, eds. The limits of consent: a socio-legal approach to human subject research in medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
26. Harris J. Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics 2005;31:242-8.
27. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH. The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry 1982;5:319-29.
28. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, et al. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 1987;17:20-4.
29. Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis AM, et al. Clinical trials and medical care: defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS Med 2007;4:e324. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082641/ (accessed 24 Oct 2009).
30. Lawton J. Lay experiences of health and illness: past research and future agendas. Sociol Health Illn 2003;25:23-40.