EngageUC: Developing an Efficient and Ethical Approach to Biobanking Research at the University of California

Clinical and Translational Science

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 362-366

  Garrett, Sarah B ^a   Koenig, Barbara A ^a   Brown, Arleen ^b   Hult, Jen R ^a   Boyd, Elizabeth A ^c   Dry, Sarah ^b   Dohan, Daniel ^a   Berglund, Lars ^d   Dubinett, Steven ^d   Firestein, Gary ^d   Grady, Deborah ^d   Daniel Mercola, ^d   Johnston, S Claiborne ^d   Sak, Rachael ^d   Cavaleri, Giuseppe ^d   Longstaff, Holly ^d   Burgess, Michael ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Biorepositories; Patients; Population; Translational research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOBANKING RESEARCH; CLINICAL DATA REPOSITORY; ENGAGEUC; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH ETHICS; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY; BIOBANK; ETHICS; INFORMED CONSENT;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84940035697     PISSN: 17528054     EISSN: 17528062     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cts.12259     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Petersen LA, Simpson K, Sorelle R, Urech T, Chitwood SS. How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156(10): 728-735.
2. Jewell SD, Hansel DE. Developing and Organizing an Institutional Biospecimen Repository. Northfield, IL College of American Pathologists, 2014.
3. Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V. Informed consent-why are its goals imperfectly realized? N Engl J Med. 1980; 302(16): 896-900.
4. Annas GJ. Reforming informed consent to genetic research. JAMA. 2001; 286(18): 2326 -2328.
5. Clayton EW, Smith M, Fullerton SM, Burke W, McCarty CA, Koenig BA, McGuire AL, Beskow LM, Dressler L, Lemke AA, et al. Confronting real time ethical, legal, and social issues in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Consortium. Genet Med 2010; 12(10): 616-620.
6. McGuire AL, Beskow LM. Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2010; 11: 361-381.
7. Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial-Sebbag E, Knoppers BM. Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J. 2007; 30(2): 373-382.
8. Malin B, Loukides G, Benitez K, Clayton EW. Identifiability in biobanks: models, measures, and mitigation strategies. Hum Genet. 2011; 130(3): 383-392.
9. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B, Lawrenz F, Kahn JP, Beskow LM, Cho MK, Christman MF, Green RC, Hall R, et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med. 2012; 14(4): 361-384.
10. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, Kahn JP, Cho MK, Clayton EW, Fletcher JG, Georgieff MK, Hammerschmidt D, Hudson K, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008; 36(2): 219-248, 211.
11. Elger BS, Caplan AL. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep. 2006; 7(7): 661-666.
12. Harris JR, Burton P, Knoppers BM, Lindpaintner K, Bledsoe M, Brookes AJ, Budin-Ljøsne I, Chisholm R, Cox D, Deschênes M, et al. Toward a roadmap in global biobanking for health. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012; 20(11): 1105-1111.
13. Caulfield T, Upshur R, Daar A. DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Med Ethics 2003; 4(1): 1.
14. California Health Interview Survey. CHIS 2009 Methodology Series: Report 1-Sample Design. Los Angeles, CA; 2011. Available at: http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/Documents/Newsroom%20PDF/CHIS2009_method1.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2014.
15. California Health Interview Survey. CHIS 2009 Methodology Series: Report 2-Data Collection Methods. Los Angeles, CA; 2011. Available at: http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/Documents/Newsroom%20PDF/CHIS2009_method2.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2014.
16. Burgess M, Young M. Biobanking in British Columbia : discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative public engagement. 2008; 5: 285-296.
17. O'Doherty KC, Burgess M, Secko DM. Sequencing the salmon genome : a deliberative public engagement. 2010; 6(1): 16-33.
18. O'Doherty KC, Hawkins AK, Burgess MM. Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. Soc Sci Med. 2012; 75(9): 1604-1611.
19. Bickmore TW, Pfeifer LM, Paasche-Orlow MK. Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 75(3): 315-320.
20. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004; 292(13): 1593-1601.
21. Ridgeway JL, Han LC, Olson JE, Lackore KA, Koenig BA, Beebe TJ, Ziegenfuss JY. Potential bias in the bank: what distinguishes refusers, nonresponders and participants in a clinic-based biobank? Public Health Genom. 2013; 16(3): 118-126.
22. Han LC, Ridgeway JL, Olson JE, Lackore KA, Koenig BA, Beebe TJ, Ziegenfuss JY. Is more always better? The impact of simplified informed consent on response rates and comprehension in a clinic-based biobank. In: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities. Washington, DC; 2012.
23. Oliver JM, Slashinski MJ, Wang T, Kelly PA, Hilsenbeck SG, McGuire AL. Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants' perspectives. Public Health Genom. 2012; 15(2): 106-114.
24. Austin MA, Harding S, McElroy C. Genebanks: a comparison of eight proposed international genetic databases. Public Health Genom. 2003; 6(1): 37-45.
25. Swede H, Stone CL, Norwood AR. National population-based biobanks for genetic research. Genet Med. 2007; 9(3): 141-149.
26. Secko DM, Preto N, Niemeyer S, Burgess MM. Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 68(4): 781-789.
27. Beskow LM, Dean E. Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants' understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17(6): 1440-1451.
28. Fullerton SM, Wolf WA, Brothers KB, Clayton EW, Crawford DC, Denny JC, Greenland P, Koenig BA, Leppig KA, Lindor NM, et al. Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Genet Med. 2012; 14(4): 424-431.
29. O'Doherty K, Hawkins AK. Structuring public engagement for effective input in policy development on human tissue banking. Public Health Genom. 2010; 13: 197-206.
30. Olson JE, Ryu E, Johnson KJ, Koenig BA, Maschke KJ, Morrisette JA, Liebow M, Takahashi PY, Fredericksen ZS, Sharma RG, et al. The Mayo Clinic Biobank: a building block for individualized medicine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013; 88(9): 952-962.
31. Burgess MM. From "trust us" to participatory governance: deliberative publics and science policy. Public Underst Sci. 2014; 23(1): 48-52.
32. McCarty CA, Chapman-Stone D, Derfus T, Giampietro PF, Fost N. Community consultation and communication for a population-based DNA biobank: the Marshfield clinic personalized medicine research project. Am J Med Genet A 2008; 146A(23): 3026-3033.
33. Molster C, Maxwell S, Youngs L, Potts A, Kyne G, Hope F, Dawkins H, O'Leary P. An Australian approach to the policy translation of deliberated citizen perspectives on biobanking. Public Health Genom. 2012; 15(2): 82-91.
34. Kingdon JW, Thurber JA. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown; 1984.