Thematic analysis of cardiac care patients' explanations for declining contribution to a genomic research-based biobank

American Journal of Critical Care

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 320-327

  Williams, Pamela Holtzclaw ^a   Nemeth, Lynne S ^a   Sanner, Jennifer E ^b   Frazier, Lorraine Q ^c  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONFIDENTIALITY; FEMALE; GENETICS; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIOECONOMICS; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; CONFIDENTIALITY; CRITICAL CARE; FEMALE; GENETIC RESEARCH; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 84881483522     PISSN: 10623264     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2013838     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Chan TW, Mackey S, Hegney DG. Patients' experiences on donation of their residual biological samples and the impact of these experiences on the type of consent given for the future research use of the tissue: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10(1):9-26.
2. Johnsson L, Hansson MG, Eriksson S, Helgesson G. Patients' refusal to consent to storage and use of samples in Swedish biobanks: cross sectional study [abstract]. BMJ. 2008;337:a345.
3. Williams PH, Schepp K, McGrath B, Mitchell P. The stewardship model: current viability for genetic biobank practice development. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2010;33(1):E41-E49.
4. Jeffers BR. Human biological materials in research: ethical issues and the role of stewardship in minimizing research risks. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2001;24(2):32-46.
5. Meslin E. The value of using top-down and bottom-up approaches for building trust and transparency in biobanking. Public Health Genomics. 2010;14(4):207-214.
6. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME. Public and bio - bank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(6):368-377.
7. Brothers KB, Morrison DR, Clayton EW. Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155(12):2982-2990.
8. Kaufman D, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Scott J. Preferences for opt-in and opt-out enrollment and consent models in biobank research: a national survey of Veterans Administration patients. Genet Med. 2012;14(9):787-794.
9. Pulley J, Clayton E, Bernard GR, Roden DM, Masys DR. Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out, de-identified biobank. Clin Transl Sci. 2010;3(1):42-48.
10. Jairath N, Ulrich CM, Ley C. Ethical considerations in the recruitment of research subjects from hospitalized, cardiovascular patient populations. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2005; 20(1):56-61.
11. Pulley J, Brace M, Bernard G, Masys DR. Attitudes and perceptions of patients towards methods of establishing a DNA biobank. Cell Tissue Bank. 2008;9(1):55-65.
12. Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1758-1772.
13. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2): 105-112.
14. Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107-115.
15. Park A. 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now. TIME Specials, Online multimedia, 2009. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884766,00.html. Accessed April 15, 2013.
16. Meslin EM, Cho MK. Research ethics in the era of personalized medicine: updating science's contract with society. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(6):378-384.
17. Goldman RE, Kingdon C, Wasser J, et al. Rhode Islanders' attitudes towards the development of a statewide genetic biobank. Personalized Med. 2008;5(4):339-359.
18. Sanner JE, Frazier L. Factors that influence characteristics of genetic biobanks. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(1):25-29.
19. Dressler LG, Terry SF. How will GINA influence participation in pharmacogenomics research and clinical testing? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86(5):472-475.
20. Clark J. Defining the concept of dignity and developing a model to promote its use in practice. Nurs Times. 2010;106(20):16-19.
21. Jacobson N. Dignity violation in health care. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(11):1536-1547.
22. Dickert NW. Re-examining respect for human research participants. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2009;19(4):311-338.
23. Dickert NW, Kass NE. Understanding respect: learning from patients. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(7):419-423.
24. Kirchhoffer DG, Dierickx K. Human dignity and human tissue: a meaningful ethical relationship? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(9):552-556.
25. Jacobson GA. Vulnerable research participants: anyone may qualify. Nurs Sci Q. 2005;18(4):359-363.
26. Pulley J, Brace M, Bernard G, Masys D. Evaluation of the effectiveness of posters to provide information to patients about a DNA database and their opportunity to opt out. Cell Tissue Bank. 2007;8(3):233-241.
27. Brehaut JC, Fergusson DA, Kimmelman J, Shojania KG, Saginur R, Elwyn G. Using decision aids may improve informed consent for research. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010;31(3):218-220.