Achieving online consent to participation in large-scale gene-environment studies: A tangible destination

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 37, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 487-492

  Wood, Fiona ^a   Kowalczuk, Jenny ^b   Elwyn, Glyn ^a   Mitchell, Clive ^a   Gallacher, John ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Modus Consulting   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ETHICS; FEMALE; GENETICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRIVACY; QUESTIONNAIRE; TRUST; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GENETIC RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PRIVACY; QUESTIONNAIRES; TRUST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80052411221     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2010.040352     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Huybrechts K, Mikkelsen E, Christensen T, et al. A successful implementation of e-epidemiology: the Danish pregnancy planning study 'Snart-Gravid'. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:297-304.
2. Wang S, Fridlinger F, Sheedy K, et al. Public attitudes regarding the donation and storage of blood specimens for genetic research. Community Genet 2004;4:18-26.
3. Hapgood R, Shickle D, Kent A. Consultation With Primary Care Health Professionals on Issues Relating to the Recruitment of Patients to a DNA Collection Study. London: The Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council, 2001.
4. Lyall S. Country unveils its gene pool and debate flares. NY Times (Print) February 1999:F1-F4.
5. Nunkoosing K. The problem with interviews. Qual Health Res 2005;15:698-706.
6. Bloor M, Wood F. Keywords in Qualitative Methods. London: Sage, 2006.
7. Chan T, Goldthorpe J. Social status and newspaper readership. Am J Sociol 2007;112:1095-134.
8. Gallacher J, Mitchell C. Age Well, Feel Good. 2008. http://medic.cardiff.ac.uk/new/. (accessed 2010).
9. Nohr E, Frydenberg M, Henriksen T, et al. Does low participation in cohort studies induce bias? Epidemiology 2006;17:413-18.
10. Nilsen R, Vollset S, Gjessing H, et al. Self-selection and bias in a large prospective pregnancy cohort in Norway. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2009;23:597-608.
11. Green D, Cushman M, Dermond N, et al. Obtaining informed consent for genetic studies: the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:845-51.
12. Kettis-Lindblad A, Ring L, Biverth E, et al. Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? Eur J Public Health 2006;16:433-40.
13. Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft R, Jackson C, et al. Beyond "misunderstanding": Written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:2212-22.
14. Foster M, Eisenbruan A, Carter T. Communal discourse as a supplement to informed consent for genetic research. Nat Genet 1997;17:277-9.
15. Beskow M, Burke W, Merz J, et al. Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. JAMA 2001;286:2315-21.
16. Friedman B, Felten E, Millett L. Informed Consent Online: A Conceptual Model and Design Principles. Technical Report Number 12-2. Washington: Computer Science, University of Washington, 2000.
17. Mascalzoni D, Hicks A, Pramstaller P, et al. Informed consent in the genomics era. PLoS Medicine 2008;5:e192.
18. Lunshof J, Chadwick R, Vorhaus D, et al. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet 2008;9:406-11.
19. Brehaut J, Fergusson D, Kimmelman J, et al. Using decision aids may improve informed consent for research. Contemp Clin Trials 2010;31:218-20.