Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research

Biopreservation and Biobanking

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 98-106

  Ewing, Altovise T ^a   Erby, Lori A H ^a   Bollinger, Juli ^b   Tetteyfio, Eva ^c   Ricks Santi, Luisel J ^d   Kaufman, David ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c United States Department Health ^*  (United States)

^d HAMPTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICAN; ARTICLE; BLOOD DONOR; CLINICAL DATA REPOSITORY; DEMOGRAPHY; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GENETICS; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HISPANIC; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; AGED; BIOBANK; CAUCASIAN; ETHICS; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICANS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRIVACY; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84928489870     PISSN: 19475535     EISSN: 19475543     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/bio.2014.0032     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Swede H, Stone CL, Norwood AR. National populationbased biobanks for genetic research. Genetics Med 2007;93: 141-149.
2. Smith GD, Ebrahim S, Lewis S, Hansell AL, Palmer LJ, Burton PR. Genetic epidemiology and public health: Hope, hype, and future prospects. Lancet 2005;3669495:1484-1498.
3. United States US Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010.
4. United States US Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau Projections Show a Slower Growing, Older, More Diverse Nation a Half Century from Now.
5. McQuillan GM, Porter KS, Agelli M, Kington R. Consent for genetic research in a general population: The NHANES experience. Genet Med 2003;51:35-42.
6. Shavers VL, Lynch CF, Burmeister LF. Racial differences in factors that influence the willingness to participate in medical research studies. Ann Epidemiol 2002;124:248-= 256.
7. Green PM, Kelly BA. Colorectal cancer knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors in African Americans. Cancer Nurs 2004;273:206-215.
8. Shavers VL, Lynch CF, Burmeister LF. Knowledge of the Tuskegee study and its impact on the willingness to participate in medical research studies. J Natl Med Assoc 2000;9212:563-572.
9. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Intern Med 1999;149: 537-546.
10. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol 2006;73:266-269.
11. Maschke KJ. Alternative consent approaches for biobank research. Lancet Oncol 2006;73:193-194.
12. Shickle D. The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 2006;373:503-519.
13. McGuire AL, Beskow LM. Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. Ann Rev Genom Human Genet 2010; 11:361.
14. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Informed consent in genome-scale research: What do prospective participants think? AJOB Prim Res 2012;33:3-11.
15. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A. DNA data sharing: Research participants perspectives. Genet Med 2008;101:46-53.
16. Beskow LM, y Friedman J, Hardy NC, Lin L, Weinfurt KP. Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: Stakeholder perspectives. Genet Med 2010;129:567-572.
17. Platt J, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Kardia SL, Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genet Med 2014;16:11-18.
18. Tupasela A, Sihvo S, Snell K, Jallinoja P, Aro AR, Hemminki E. Attitudes towards biomedical use of tissue sample collections, consent, and biobanks among Finns. Scand J Public Health 2010;381:46-52.
19. Ma Y, Dai H, Wang L, Zhu L, Zou H, Kong X. Consent for use of clinical leftover biosample: A survey among Chinese patients and the general public. PloS One 2012; 74:e36050.
20. Igbe M, Adebamowo C. Qualitative study of knowledge and attitudes to biobanking among lay persons in Nigeria. BMC Med Ethics 2012;131:27.
21. Van Schalkwyk G, De Vries J, Moodley K. Its for a good cause, isnt it? Exploring views of South African TB research participants on sample storage and re-use. BMC Med Ethics 2012;131:1-7.
22. Willison DJ, Schwartz L, Abelson J, et al. Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: What is the opinion of the Canadian public? J Am Med Informat Assoc 2007;146: 706-712.
23. Valle-Mansilla JI, Ruiz-Canela M, Sulmasy DP. Patients attitudes to informed consent for genomic research with donated samples. Cancer Invest 2010;287:726-734.
24. Hens K, Snoeck J, Nys H, Cassiman J, Dierickx K. An exploratory survey of professionals on the use of stored tissue samples from minors for genetic research. Genet Mol Res 2010;92:973-980.
25. Beskow LM, Friedman JY, Hardy NC, Lin L, Weinfurt KP. Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking. PLoS One 2010;510:e13302.
26. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Int Med 1999;149: 537-546.
27. Ewing A, Thompson N, Ricks-Santi L. Strategies for enrollment of African Americans into cancer genetic studies. J Cancer Educ 2014; 28. 110th United States Congress. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 122 Stat. 881. 2008:110-233.
28. Johnsson L, Helgesson G, Rafnar T, et al. Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research. Eur J Hum Genet 2010;1811:1261-1264.
29. Bollinger JM, Scott J, Dvoskin R, Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: Findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med 2012;144:451-457.
30. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am J Public Health 2009;9912:2128-2134.
31. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K. Subjects matter: A survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med 2008;1011:831-839.
32. Collins FS. The case for a US prospective cohort study of genes and environment. Nature 2004;4296990:475-477.
33. GfK Knowledge Networks. KnowledgePanel.
34. GfK Knowledge Networks. KNOWLEDGEPANEL LATINOSM.
35. Sanner JE, Frazier L. Factors that influence characteristics of genetic biobanks. J Nurs Scholar 2007;391:25-29.
36. Hagiwara N, Berry-Bobovski L, Francis C, Ramsey L, Chapman RA, Albrecht TL. Unexpected findings in the exploration of African American underrepresentation in biospecimen collection and biobanks. J Cancer Edu 2014:29: 580-587.
37. Streicher SA, Sanderson SC, Jabs EW, et al. Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: A focus group study. J Commun Genet 2011;23:153-163.
38. Dang JH, Rodriguez EM, Luque JS, Erwin DO, Meade CD, Chen Jr MS. Engaging diverse populations about biospecimen donation for cancer research. J Commun Genet 2014;5:313-327.
39. Cervo S, Rovina J, Talamini R, et al. 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 Med Ethics 2013; 141:30.
40. Steinsbekk KS, Myskja BK, Solberg B. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem?. Eur J Human Genet 2013;219:897-902.
41. ODaniel J, Lucas J, Deverka P, et al. Factors influencing uptake of pharmacogenetic testing in a diverse patient population. Public Health Genom 2010;131:48-54.
42. Haga SB, ODaniel JM, Tindall GM, Lipkus IR, Agans R. Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing. Pharmacogenom J 2012;123:197-204.
43. Ridgeway JL, Han LC, Olson JE, et al. Potential bias in the bank: What distinguishes refusers, nonresponders and participants in a clinic-based biobank? Public Health Genom 2013;163:118-126.
44. Allain DC, Friedman S, Senter L. Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Familial Cancer 2012;114:637-644.
45. Dorsey E, Darwin K, Nichols P, et al. Knowledge of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination act among individuals affected byHuntington disease. Clin Genet 2013;843:251-257.
46. Almeling R, Gadarian SK. Public opinion on policy issues in genetics and genomics. Genet Med 2014;16:491-494.
47. Gutmann A. The bioethics commission on incidental findings. Science 2013;3426164:1321-1323.
48. Knerr S, Wayman D, Bonham VL. Inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in genetic research: Advance the spirit by changing the rules? J Law Med Ethics 2011;393:502-512.
49. Cambon-Thomsen A, Ducournau P, Gourraud P, Pontille D. Biobanks for genomics and genomics for biobanks. Comp Funct Genom 2003;46:628-634.
50. Simon CM, LHeureux J, Murray JC, et al. Active choice but not too active: Public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genet Med 2011;139:821-831.