Informed consent for biobanking: Consensus-based guidelines for adequate comprehension

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 226-233

  Beskow, Laura M ^a,b   Dombeck, Carrie B ^a   Thompson, Cole P ^a   Watson Ormond, J Kemp ^a   Weinfurt, Kevin P ^a,b  

^a DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

biobanking; comprehension; Delphi process; informed consent; research ethics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOBANKING; COMPREHENSION; CONSENSUS; DELPHI STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SCIENTIST; UNCERTAINTY; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MIDDLE AGED;

ADULT; AGED; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84930579300     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.102     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Vaught JB, Henderson MK, Compton CC. Biospecimens and biorepositories: from afterthought to science. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:253-255.
2. Henderson GE, Cadigan RJ, Edwards TP, et al. Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey. Genome Med 2013;5:3.
3. Baker M. Biorepositories: building better biobanks. Nature 2012;486:141-146.
4. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1145-1150.
5. Mello MM, Wolf LE. The Havasupai Indian tribe case-lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. N Engl J Med 2010;363:204-207.
6. Couzin-Frankel J. Ethics. DNA returned to tribe, raising questions about consent. Science 2010;328:558.
7. Doerr A. Newborn blood spot litigation: 70 days to destroy 5+ million samples. http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/02/02/newborn-bloodspot-litigation-70-days-to-destroy-5-million-samples/. Accessed 17 June 2014.
8. Callaway E. HeLa publication brews bioethical storm. http://www.nature.com/news/hela-publication-brews-bioethical-storm-1.12689. Accessed 17 June 2014.
9. Vaught J, Lockhart NC. The evolution of biobanking best practices. Clin Chim Acta 2012;413:1569-1575.
10. McGuire AL, Beskow LM. Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2010;11:361-381.
11. Wendler D, Grady C. What should research participants understand to understand they are participants in research? Bioethics 2008;22:203-208.
12. Appelbaum PS. Understanding "understanding": an important step toward improving informed consent to research. AJOB Prim Res 2010;1(suppl 2): 1-3.
13. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984;74:979-983.
14. Black N, Murphy M, Lamping D, et al. Consensus development methods: a review of best practice in creating clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy 1999;4:236-248.
15. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000;32:1008-1015.
16. Hutchings A, Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N. A comparison of formal consensus methods used for developing clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy 2006;11:218-224.
17. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna HP. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, West Sussex, UK, 2011.
18. Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1150-1156.
19. The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network Consent & Community Consultation Workgroup Informed Consent Task Force. Model consent language. http://www.genome.gov/27526660. Accessed 17 June 2014.
20. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Office for Human Research Protections. Guidance on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: Implications for Investigators and Institutional Review Boards. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/gina.html. Accessed 17 June 2014.
21. Beskow LM, Check DK, Ammarell N. Research Participants' Understanding of and Reactions to Certificates of Confidentiality. AJOB Prim Res 2014;5:12-22.
22. Hudson KL, Holohan MK, Collins FS. Keeping pace with the times-the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2661-2663.
23. Wendler D. Can we ensure that all research subjects give valid consent? Arch Intern Med 2004;164:2201-2204.
24. McCarty CA, Nair A, Austin DM, Giampietro PF. Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project. Community Genet 2007;10:2-9.
25. Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, Chisholm RL, Wolf WA. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am J Med Genet A 2009;149A:188-198.
26. Rahm AK, Wrenn M, Carroll NM, Feigelson HS. Biobanking for research: a survey of patient population attitudes and understanding. J Community Genet 2013;4:445-450.
27. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 4th Ed. Oxford University Press: New York; 1994.
28. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, Volume 1. US Government Printing Office: Rockville, MD, 2001.
29. Institute of Medicine. Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2002.
30. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1979.
31. Sand K, Kaasa S, Loge JH. The understanding of informed consent information-definitions and measurements in empirical studies. AJOB Prim Res 2010;1(suppl 2):4-24.
32. Beskow LM, Friedman JY, Hardy NC, Lin L, Weinfurt KP. Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: stakeholder perspectives. Genet Med 2010;12:567-572.
33. White Paper. Creating a Global Alliance to Enable Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Clinical Data. http://www.broadinstitute.org/files/news/pdfs/GAWhitePaperJune3.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2014.
34. Beskow LM, Friedman JY, Hardy NC, Lin L, Weinfurt KP. Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking. PLoS One 2010;5:e13302.
35. National Cancer Institute. Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research. Custodianship and Ownership Issues in Biospecimen Research. http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/global/pdfs/CaOSumm.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2014.
36. Department of Health and Human Services. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Human Subjects Research Protections-Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators. Federal Register 2011;76(suppl 143):44512-44531.
37. Palmer BW, Cassidy EL, Dunn LB, Spira AP, Sheikh JI. Effective use of consent forms and interactive questions in the consent process. IRB 2008;30:8-12.
38. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 2004;292:1593-1601.
39. De Vries R, Stanczyk A, Wall IF, Uhlmann R, Damschroder LJ, Kim SY. Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Soc Sci Med 2010;70:1896-1903.
40. Kim SY, Wall IF, Stanczyk A, De Vries R. Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2009;4:3-16.
41. Secko DM, Preto N, Niemeyer S, Burgess MM. Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:781-789.