Consent issues in genetic research: Views of research participants

Public Health Genomics

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 220-228

  Goodman, Deborah ^a   Johnson, Catherine O ^b   Wenzel, Lari ^a   Bowen, Deborah ^b   Condit, Celeste ^c   Edwards, Karen L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Broad consent; Genetics; Participants; Re consent

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADULTHOOD; ARTICLE; CANCER GENETICS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PARENTAL CONSENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM ACCEPTABILITY; QUANTITATIVE GENETICS; RELATIVE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPREHENSION; ETHICS; GENETICS; GENOMICS; INFORMED CONSENT; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEOPLASM; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PSYCHOLOGY; REGISTER; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; WASHINGTON; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPREHENSION; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FEMALE; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PRECISION MEDICINE; REGISTRIES; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; WASHINGTON; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84978091930     PISSN: 16624246     EISSN: 16628063     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000447346     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Hawgood S, Hook-Barnard IG, O Brien TC, Yamamoto KR. Precision medicine: beyond the inflection point. Sci Transl Med 2015; 7: 300.PS17
2. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 793-795
3. Steinsbekk KS, Myskja BK, Solberg B. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: is passive participation an ethical problem?. Eur J Hum Genet 2013; 21: 897-902
4. Duffy DJ. Problems, challenges and promises: perspectives on precision medicine. Brief Bioinform DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbv060
5. Fullerton SM, Anderson NR, Guzauskas G, Freeman D, Fryer-Edwards K. Meeting the governance challenges of next-generation biorepository research. Sci Transl Med 2010; 2: 15cm3
6. Greely HT. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2007; 8: 343-364
7. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Ludman EJ, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Research practice and participant preferences: The growing gulf. Science 2011; 331: 287-288
8. Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, Edwards KL, Starks H, Wiesner GL. Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010; 5: 83-91
9. Edwards KL, Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, Lewis SM, Starks H, Snapin KW, et al. Genetics researchers and IRB professionals attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis. Genet Med 2012; 14: 236-242
10. Hofmann B. Broadening consent-and diluting ethics?. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 125-129
11. Caulfield T. Biobanks and blanket consent: The proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. King Law J 2007; 18: 2090-2026
12. Arnason V. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 2004; 18: 27-49
13. Tam NT, Thoa LTB, Long NP, Trang NTH, Hirayama K, Karbwang J. Participants understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 2015; 93: 186-198H
14. Edwards KL, Korngiebel DM, Pfeifer L, Renz A, Shridhar NN, Wenzel L, et al. Participant views on consent in cancer genetic research: preparing for the precision medicine era. J Community Genet 2016; 7: 133-143
15. Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Bowen D, Finkelstein D, Griffin C Hanson J, et al. The Cancer Genetics Network: recruitment results and pilot studies. Community Genet 2003; 6: 171-177
16. Merz JF, Sankar P, Taube SE, Livolsi V. Use of human tissues in research: clarifying clinician and researcher roles and information flows. J Investig Med 1997; 45: 252-257
17. Condit CM, Korngiebel DM, Pfeifer M, Renz AD, Bowen DJ, Kaufman D, et al. What should be the character of the researcher-participant relationship?. Views of participants in a longstanding cancer genetic registry. IRB 2015; 37: 1-10
18. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, Wiley, 2007
19. Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2005
20. R Core Team: R. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2015; MASS package (code for ordinal logistic regression; Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S, ed 4. Springer, New York, 2002
21. Precision Medicine Initiative: Privacy and Trust Principles. https://www.whitehouse. gov/sites/default/files/microsites/finalpmiprivacyandtrustprinciples. pdf
22. Ludman EJ, Fullerton SM, Spangler D, Trinidad SB, Fujii MM, Jarvik GP, et al. Glad you asked: participants opinions of re-consent for DbGap data submission. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010; 5: 9-16
23. Edwards KL, Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, Lewis SM, Starks H, Quinn Griffin MT, Wiesner GL. Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers. Public Health Genomics 2011; 14: 337-345
24. Petrini C: Broad consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose Soc Sci Med 2010 70 217-220
25. Haga SB, Beskow LM. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetic research. Adv Genet 2008; 60: 505-544
26. 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
27. Kelly SE, Spector TD, Cherkas LF, Prainsack B, Harris JM. Evaluating the consent preferences of UK research volunteers for genetic and clinical studies. PLoS One 2015; 10: 1-12
28. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med 2008; 10: 831-839