‘Cool! and creepy’: engaging with college student stakeholders in Michigan’s biobank

Journal of Community Genetics

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 349-362

  Platt, Tevah ^a   Platt, Jodyn ^a   Thiel, Daniel B ^a   Fisher, Nicole ^a   Kardia, Sharon L R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Biobank; Community engagement; Informed consent; Newborn screening; Public attitudes; Public health; Public health education

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOBANK; BIOINFORMATICS; COLLEGE STUDENT; DRIED BLOOD SPOT TESTING; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; NEWBORN SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STUDENT ATTITUDE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84955210576     PISSN: 1868310X     EISSN: 18686001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12687-014-0190-4     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Botkin JR, Rothwell E, Anderson R, Stark L, Goldenberg A, Lewis M, Burbank M, Wong B (2012) Public attitudes regarding the use of residual newborn screening specimens for research. Pediatrics 129(2):231–238. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0970
2. Botkin JR, Goldenberg AJ, Rothwell E, Anderson RA, Lewis MH (2013) Retention and research use of residual newborn screening bloodspots. Pediatrics 131(1):120–127. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0852
3. Campbell AV (2007) The ethical challenges of genetic databases: Safeguarding altruism and trust. King’s Law J 18(2):227–245
4. Carmichael M (2011) Newborn screening: A spot of trouble. Nature 475(7355):156–158. doi:10.1038/475156a
5. Clayton EW (2005) Informed consent and biobanks. J Law Med Ethics 33(1):15–21
6. Couzin-Frankel J (2009) Newborn blood collections: Science gold mine, ethical minefield. Science 324:166–168
7. Dillon DL, Sternas K (1997) Designing a successful health fair to promote individual, family, and community health. J Community Health Nurs 14(1):1–14
8. DP02 (2007) Selected social characteristics in the United States. 2007–2011 American Community Survey. [Webpage]. Available from http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed 8 Nov 2013
9. Duquette D, Langbo C, Bach J, Kleyn M (2012) Michigan BioTrust for Health: Public support for using residual dried blood spot samples for health research. Public Health Genomics 15(3–4):146–155. doi:10.1159/00033656
10. Fleck LM, Mongoven A, Marzec S (2008) Stored blood spots: ethical and policy challenges. Michigan State University, Institute for Public Policy and Social Research
11. Fullerton SM, Anderson NR, Guzauskas G, Freeman D, Fryer-Edwards K (2010) Meeting the governance challenges of next-generation biorepository research. Sci Transl Med 2(15):15cm3
12. Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press, Stanford
13. Green J, Thorogood N (2009) Qualitative methods for health research. Sage, Los Angeles
14. Gunderson M (1990) Justifying a principle of informed consent: A case study in autonomy-based ethics. Public Aff Q 4(3):249–265
15. Harmon SH, Laurie G, Haddow G (2013) Governing risk, engaging publics and engendering trust: new horizons for law and social science? Sci Public Policy 40(1):25–33
16. Hofmann B (2003) Technological paternalism: on how medicine has reformed ethics and how technology can refine moral theory. Sci Eng Ethics 9(3):343–352
17. Hofmann B (2004) Do biobanks promote paternalism? On the loss of autonomy in the quest for individual independence. In: Arnason, Nordal, Arnason (eds) Blood and data: ethical, legal and social aspects of human genetic databases. University of Iceland Press & Center for Ethics, Reykjavik
18. Hofmann BM (2008) Bypassing consent for research on biological material. Nat Biotechnol 26(9):979–980. doi:10.1038/nbt0908-979b
19. Institute for Public Policy and Social Research-State of the State Survey (SOSS) nos. 60, 63, and 66 [Web page]. Available from http://ippsr.msu.edu/soss/sossdata.htm. Accessed 13 Feb 2014
20. IPEDS Data Center. [Web page]. Available from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/. Accessed 8 Nov 2013
21. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, Edwards K, Stephanie M, Fullerton NK, Lund D et al (2012) From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet 13(5):371–376
22. Kimber M, Couturier J, Jack S, Niccols A, Van Blyderveen S, McVey G (2013) Decision-making processes for the uptake and implementation of family-based therapy by eating disorder treatment teams: a qualitative study. Int J Eat Disord. doi:10.1002/eat.22185
23. Kon AA (2010) The shared decision-making continuum. JAMA 304(8):903–904
24. Langbo C, Bach J, Kleyn M, Downes FP (2013) From newborn screening to population health research: Implementation of the Michigan BioTrust for Health. Public Health Rep(Washington DC: 1974) 128(5):377–384
25. Lewis MH, Goldenberg A, Anderson R, Rothwell E, Botkin J (2011) State laws regarding the retention and use of residual newborn screening blood samples. Pediatrics 127(4):703–712. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-1468
26. McCarty CA, Chapman-Stone D, Derfus T, Giampietro PF, Fost N (2008) Community consultation and communication for a population-based DNA biobank: The Marshfield clinic personalized medicine research project. Am J Med Genet A 146(23):3026–3033, Available from Google Scholar
27. McGuire AL, Beskow LM (2010) Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 11:361–381. doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141711
28. McVicar B (2014) Database: See how tuition hikes have affected rich, poor, middle-income students at your college. [blog post] 2 April 2014. Available from http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/04/database_see_how_tuition_hikes.html. Accessed 14 May 2014
29. Meslin EM (2010) The value of using top-down and bottom-up approaches for building trust and transparency in biobanking. Public Health Genomics 13(4):207–214. doi:10.1159/000279622
30. Michigan Department of Community Health (2013) After Newborn Screening: About Your Baby's Blood Spots. Lansing, MI. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Biotrust_Book_327197_7.pdf. Accessed 14 February 2014
31. Mongoven A, McGee H (2012) IRB review and public health biobanking: a case study of the Michigan BioTrust for Health. IRB 34(3):11–16
32. NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis [Website]. Available from http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=104 Accessed 14 May 2014
33. Noar, Seth M (2006) A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: where do we go from here? J Health Comm: Int Perspect 11(1):21–42. doi:10.1080/1080730500461059
34. O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM, Edwards K, Gallagher RP, Hawkins AK, Kaye J, McCaffrey, Winickoff DE (2011) From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med 73(3):367–374
35. Petrini C (2010) "Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose. Soc Sci Med 70:217–220. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.004
36. Platt JE, Platt T, Thiel D, Kardia SL (2013) 'Born in Michigan? You're in the biobank': engaging population biobank participants through facebook advertisements. Public Health Genomics 16(4):145–158. doi:10.1159/000351451
37. Platt J, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Kardia SL, Kaufman D (2014) Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genet Med 16(1):11–18. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.5
38. Rothstein MA (2010) Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research? Am J Bioeth: AJOB 10(9):3. doi:10.1080/15265161.2010.494215
39. Rothwell E, Anderson R, Botkin J (2010) Policy issues and stakeholder concerns regarding the storage and use of residual newborn dried blood samples for research. Pol Polit Nurs Pract 11(1):5–12
40. Rothwell EW, Anderson RA, Burbank MJ, Goldenberg AJ, Lewis MH, Stark LA, Botkin JR (2011) Concerns of newborn blood screening advisory committee members regarding storage and use of residual newborn screening blood spots. Am J Public Health 101(11):2111–2116. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.200485
41. Ruggles S, Alexander JT, Genadek K, Goeken R, Schroeder MB, Sobek M (2010) Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
42. Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Bryant AN (2003) Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Res High Educ 44(4):409–432
43. Shickle D (2006) The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C: Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 37(3):503–519. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.06.007
44. Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hofmann B (2009) The ethics of research biobanking. Springer, Dordrecht
45. Tarini BA, Goldenberg A, Singer D, Clark SJ, Butchart A, Davis MM (2009) Not without my permission: Parents’ willingness to permit use of newborn screening samples for research. Public Health Genomics 13(3):125–130. doi:10.1159/000228724
46. Therrell BL, Hannon WH, Bailey DB, Goldman EB, Monaco J, Norgaard-Pedersen B, Terry SF, Johnson A, Howell RR (2011) Committee report: considerations and recommendations for national guidance regarding the retention and use of residual dried blood spot specimens after newborn screening. Genetics Med 13(7):621–624. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182147639
47. Thiel DB, Platt T, Platt J, King SB, Kardia SL (2013) Community perspectives on public health biobanking: an analysis of community meetings on the Michigan BioTrust for health. J Community Genet. doi:10.1007/s12687-013-0162-0