Participant views on consent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era

Journal of Community Genetics

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 133-143

  Edwards, Karen L ^a,b   Korngiebel, Diane M ^b   Pfeifer, Lesley ^b   Goodman, Deborah ^a   Renz, Anne ^c   Wenzel, Lari ^a   Bowen, Deborah J ^b,d   Condit, Celeste M ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Broad consent; Consent; Genetics; Participant views; Precision medicine; Re consent

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICINE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GENETICS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COHORT ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL CANCER; FEMALE; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRECISION MEDICINE INITIATIVE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RESEARCH PRIORITY; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SOCIAL STATUS;

EID: 84955313029     PISSN: 1868310X     EISSN: 18686001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12687-015-0259-8     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alyass A, Turcotte M, Meyre D (2015) From big data analysis to personalized medicine for all: challenges and opportunities. BMC Med Genomics 8:33
2. Annas GJ (2001) Reforming informed consent to genetic research. JAMA 286(18):2326–2328
3. Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Bowen D et al (2003) The Cancer Genetics Network: recruitment results and pilot studies. Community Genet 6(3):171–177
4. Arnason V (2004) Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 18:27–49
5. Bathe OF, McGuire AL (2009) The ethical use of existing samples for genome research. Genet Med 11(10):712–715
6. Bledsoe MJ, Grizzle WE, Clark BJ, Zeps N (2012) Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results. Genet Med 14(4):478–483
7. Caulfield T (2007) Biobanks and blanket consent: the proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. King Law J 18:209–226
8. Colditz GA (2009) Constraints on data sharing: experience from the nurses' health study. Epidemiology 20(2):169–171
9. Edwards KL, Lemke AA, Trinidad SB et al (2011) Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers. Public Health Genomics 14(6):337–345
10. Edwards KL, Lemke AA, Trinidad SB et al (2012) Genetics researchers' and IRB professionals' attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis. Genet Med 14(2):236–242
11. El Emam K, Jonker E, Arbuckle L, Malin B (2011) A systematic review of re-identification attacks on health data. PLoS One 6(12), e28071
12. Ewing AT, Bollinger E, Tetteyfio E et al (2015) Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research. Biopreserv Biobank 13:98–106
13. Forsberg JS, Hansson MG, Eriksson S (2011) The risks and benefits of re-consent. Science 332(6027):306
14. Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 24(2):105–112
15. Gurwitz D, Fortier I, Lunshof JE, Knoppers BM (2009) Research ethics. Children and population biobanks. Science 325(5942):818–819
16. Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, Halperin E, Erlich Y (2013) Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 339(6117):321–324
17. Haga SB, Beskow LM (2008) Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetic research. Adv Genet 60:505–544
18. Hawgood S, Hook-Barnard IG, O’Brien TC, Yamamoto KR (2015) Precision medicine: beyond the inflection point. Sci Transl Med 7:300.PS17
19. Helgesson G (2012) In defense of broad consent. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 21(1):40–50
20. Henderson G, Garrett J, Bussey-Jones J, Moloney ME, Blumenthal C, Corbie-Smith G (2008) Great expectations: views of genetic research participants regarding current and future genetic studies. Genet Med 10(3):193–200
21. Hofmann B (2009) Broadening consent - and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics 35:125–129
22. Ioannidis JP (2013) Informed consent, big data, and the oxymoron of research that is not research. Am J Bioeth 13(4):40–42
23. Kelly SE, Spector TD, Cherkas LF et al (2015) Evaluating the consent preferences of UK research volunteers for genetic and clinical studies. PLoS ONE 10:e0118027
24. Knoppers BM, Lévesque E (2011) Introduction: return of research results: how should research results be handled? J Law Med Ethics 39(4):574–576
25. Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, Edwards KL, Starks H, Wiesner GL (2010) Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 5(1):83–91
26. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM (2008) From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet 9(5):406–411
27. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A (2008) DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives. Genet Med 10(1):46–53
28. Novick G (2008) Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Res Nurs Health 31(4):391–398
29. Overby CA, Tarczy-Hornoch (2013) Personalized medicine: challenges and opportunities for translational bioinformatics. Per Med 10:453–462
30. 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
31. Platt J, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R et al (2014) Public preferences regarding informed concent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genet Med 16:11–18
32. Sheehan M (2011) Can broad consent be informed consent? Public Health Ethics 4(3):226–235
33. Simon C, Shinkunas LA, Brandt D, Williams JK (2012) Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance. J Med Ethics 38(7):417–422
34. Steinsbekk KS, Ursin LO, Skolbekken JA, Solberg B (2013) We're not in it for the money-lay people's moral intuitions on commercial use of 'their' biobank. Med Health Care Philos 16(2):151–162
35. Tasse AM, Budin-Ljosne I, Knoppers BM, Harris JR (2010) Retrospective access to data: the ENGAGE consent experience. Eur J Hum Genet 18(7):741–745
36. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W (2010) Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet Med 12(8):486–495
37. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Ludman EJ, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W (2011) Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf. Science 331(6015):287–288
38. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T (2013) Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 15(3):398–405
39. Willison DJ, Schwartz L, Abelson J et al (2007) Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: what is the opinion of the Canadian public? J Am Med Inform Assoc 14(6):706–712