An effective multisource informed consent procedure for research and clinical practice: An observational study of patient understanding and awareness of their roles as research stakeholders in a cancer biobank

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Cervo, Silvia ^a   Rovina, Jane ^a   Talamini, Renato ^a   Perin, Tiziana ^a   Canzonieri, Vincenzo ^a   De Paoli, Paolo ^a   Steffan, Agostino ^a  

^a CENTRO DI RIFERIMENTO ONCOLOGICO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Awareness; Biobank; Empowerment; Informed consent; Patient education; Patients; Understanding

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AWARENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPREHENSION; ETHICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMEDIA; NEOPLASM; PATIENT; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH SUBJECT; STANDARDS;

ADULT; AGED; AWARENESS; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMEDIA; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; TISSUE BANKS;

EID: 84880877268     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-30     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. Flory J, Emanuel E, JAMA 2004 292 1593 1601 10.1001/jama.292.13.1593 15467062 (Pubitemid 39314966)
2. Research understanding, attitude and awareness towards biobanking: a survey among Italian twin participants to a genetic epidemiological study. Toccaceli V, Fagnani C, Nistico L, D'Ippolito C, Giannantonio L, Brescianini S, Stazi MA, BMC Med Ethics 2009 10 4 10.1186/1472-6939-10-4 19531243
3. Nuremberg Code 2012 http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
4. 18th WMA General Assembly, World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects 2012 http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih9/bioethics/guide/teacher/ Mod5-Helsinki.pdf
5. Globalized clinical trials and informed consent. Annas GJ, N Engl J Med 2009 360 2050 2053 10.1056/NEJMp0901474 19439740
6. The therapeutic misconception and our models of competency and informed consent. Lidz CW, Behav Sci Law 2006 24 535 546 10.1002/bsl.700 16883621 (Pubitemid 44328716)
7. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G, Am J Surg 2009 198 420 435 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010 19716887
8. The epidemiologist's responsibilities to study participants. Feinleib M, J Clin Epidemiol 1991 44 Suppl 1 73S 79S 2045846
9. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K, Genet Med 2008 10 831 839 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818bb3ab 19011407
10. Study newsletters, community and ethics advisory boards, and focus group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank. McCarty CA, Garber A, Reeser JC, Fost NC, Am J Med Genet A 2011 155A 737 741 21572889
11. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Comitato Nazionale per la Biosicurezza e le Biotecnologie, Linee guida per le la certificazione delle biobanche 2012 http://www.governo.it/biotecnologie/documenti/7-biobanche-1.pdf
12. The value of banked samples for oncology drug discovery and development. Shaw PM, Patterson SD, J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2011 2011 46 49 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgr004 21672897
13. Biospecimens and people: a fundamental connection. Collyar DE, J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2011 2011 41 42 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgr002 21672895
14. Improving communication with cancer patients. Siminoff LA, Oncology (Williston Park) 1992 6 83 87
15. Bio-libraries and DNA storage: assessment of patient perception of information. Moutel G, De MS, Meningaud JP, Herve C, Med Law 2001 20 193 204 11495203 (Pubitemid 32640220)
16. Informed versus randomised consent to clinical trials. Gallo C, Perrone F, De PS, Giusti C, Lancet 1995 346 1060 1064 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91741-1 7564786
17. Informed consent for investigational chemotherapy: patients' and physicians' perceptions. Penman DT, Holland JC, Bahna GF, Morrow G, Schmale AH, Derogatis LR, Carnrike CL Jr, Cherry R, J Clin Oncol 1984 2 849 855 6737023 (Pubitemid 14050695)
18. Consumer participation and organizational development in health care: a systematic review. Tempfer CB, Nowak P, Wien Klin Wochenschr 2011 123 408 414 10.1007/s00508-011-0008-x 21739200
19. Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: setting the research agenda for medical products. Elberse JE, Pittens CA, De Cock BT, Broerse JE, Health Policy 2012 107 231 242 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.05.014 22739128
20. Public participation in regional health policy: a theoretical framework. Thurston WE, MacKean G, Vollman A, Casebeer A, Weber M, Maloff B, Bader J, Health Policy 2005 73 237 252 10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.11.013 16039343 (Pubitemid 41019060)
21. Sharing decisions in breast cancer care: Development of the Decision Analysis System for Oncology (DAS-O) to identify shared decision making during treatment consultations. Brown RF, Butow PN, Juraskova I, Ribi K, Gerber D, Bernhard J, Tattersall MH, Health Expect 2011 14 29 37 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010. 00613.x 20629766
22. Public involvement in breast cancer research: an analysis and model for future research. McCormick S, Brody J, Brown P, Polk R, Int J Health Serv 2004 34 625 646 10.2190/HPXB-9RK8-ETVM-RVEA 15560426 (Pubitemid 39487734)
23. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, Gauvin FP, Pollender H, Legare F, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011 27 31 42 10.1017/S0266462310001315 21262085
24. Assessing genetic testing: who are the lay experts? Goven J, Health Policy 2008 85 1 18 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.06.004 17645980 (Pubitemid 350137515)
25. Patient empowerment-who empowers whom? Editorial. The Lancet, Lancet 2012 379 1677 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60699-0 22559881
26. Building on relationships of trust in biobank research. Hansson MG, J Med Ethics 2005 31 415 418 10.1136/jme.2004.009456 15994363 (Pubitemid 40945971)
27. Evidence of support for biobanking practices. Laurie G, BMJ 2008 337 337 10.1136/bmj.a337 18617495
28. Informed consent: can a patient ever be fully informed? Lupton M, Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2005 17 601 604 10.1097/01.gco.0000191900.61697.74 16258342 (Pubitemid 41658967)
29. Awareness and motivation of Japanese donors of blood for research. Nakayama T, Muto K, Yoshiike N, Yokoyama T, Am J Public Health 1999 89 1433 1434 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1433 10474568 (Pubitemid 29404574)
30. Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K, Am J Public Health 2009 99 2128 2134 10.2105/AJPH.2008.157099 19833988
31. Biobank research and the right to privacy. Ursin LO, Theor Med Bioeth 2008 29 267 285 10.1007/s11017-008-9079-8 18855123
32. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL, Am J Hum Genet 2009 85 643 654 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002 19878915
33. Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: a conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions. Pullman D, Etchegary H, Gallagher K, Hodgkinson K, Keough M, Morgan D, Street C, Genet Med 2012 14 229 235 10.1038/gim.0b013e31822e578f 22261752
34. Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Kaphingst KA, Janoff JM, Harris LN, Emmons KM, Clin Genet 2006 69 393 398 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006. 00614.x 16650074
35. A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples. Vermeulen E, Schmidt MK, Aaronson NK, Kuenen M, Baas-Vrancken Peeters MJ, van der Poel H, Horenblas S, Boot H, Verwaal VJ, Cats A, Van Leeuwen FE, Br J Cancer 2009 101 1505 1512 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605339 19861997
36. Opt-out plus, the patients' choice: preferences of cancer patients concerning information and consent regimen for future research with biological samples archived in the context of treatment. Vermeulen E, Schmidt MK, Aaronson NK, Kuenen M, Van der Valk P, Sietses C, van den Tol P, J Clin Pathol 2009 62 275 278 10.1136/jcp.2008.061069 19017681
37. Consent for biobanking: assessing the understanding and views of cancer patients. Mancini J, Pellegrini I, Viret F, Vey N, Daufresne LM, Chabannon C, Julian-Reynier C, J Natl Cancer Inst 2011 103 154 157 10.1093/jnci/djq498 21173381
38. Contributing to research via biobanks: what it means to cancer patients. Pellegrini I, Chabannon C, Mancini J, Viret F, Vey N, Julian-Reynier C, Health Expect 2012 in press
39. Two decades' experience with a prospective biobank for urologic oncology: research, clinical care, and the patients' view. Huber J, Herpel E, Jakobi H, Hadaschik BA, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M, Urol Oncol 2012 in press
40. Biobanking residual tissues. Riegman PH, Van Veen EB, Hum Genet 2011 130 357 368 10.1007/s00439-011-1074-x 21814798
41. Inclusion of residual tissue in biobanks: opt-in or opt-out? Giesbertz NA, Bredenoord AL, Van Delden JJ, PLoS Biol 2012 10 1001373 10.1371/journal. pbio.1001373 22899893