Dynamic Consent: A potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Budin Ljøsne, Isabelle ^a,b   Teare, Harriet J A ^c   Kaye, Jane ^c   Beck, Stephan ^d   Bentzen, Heidi Beate ^a,b   Caenazzo, Luciana ^e   Collett, Clive ^f   D'Abramo, Flavio ^g   Felzmann, Heike ^h   Finlay, Teresa ^c   Javaid, Muhammad Kassim ^c   Jones, Erica ^d   Katić, Višnja ⁱ   Simpson, Amy ^j   Mascalzoni, Deborah ^k,l  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b Norwegian Cancer Genomics Consortium ^*  (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^f Health Research Authority   (United Kingdom)

^g FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^h NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF RIJEKA   (Croatia)

^j GENETIC ALLIANCE UK   (United Kingdom)

^k UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^l INSTITUTE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY   (Italy)

more..

Author keywords

Biobank; Clinical research; Clinical trials; Dynamic consent; Ethics; Participant engagement; Research communication; Software tools

Indexed keywords

BIOBANK; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL STUDY; CONTENT ANALYSIS; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ETHICIST; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LAWYER; MENTAL CAPACITY; SCIENTIST; SOFTWARE; UNIVERSITY; ETHICS; FOLLOW UP; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSONNEL; PROCEDURES; PROFESSIONAL-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNICATION; DATA COLLECTION; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PROFESSIONAL-PATIENT RELATIONS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 85010755533     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. European Science Foundation. ESF Forward Look: Personalised Medicine for the European Citizen. http://archives.esf.org/fileadmin/Public-documents/Publications/Personalised-Medicine.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
2. Anderson N, Bragg C, Hartzler A, Edwards K. Participant-Centric Initiatives: Tools to Facilitate Engagement In Research. Appl Transl Genom. 2012;1:25-9.
3. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2012;2(1):e000496.
4. Johnsson L, Helgesson G, Rafnar T, Halldorsdottir I, Chia KS, Eriksson S, et al. Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(11):1261-4.
5. Matsui K, Kita Y, Ueshima H. Informed consent, participation in, and withdrawal from a population based cohort study involving genetic analysis. J Med Ethics. 2005;31(7):385-92.
6. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(12):1143-56.
7. Newington L, Metcalfe A. Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:10.
8. Boden-Albala B, Carman H, Southwick L, Parikh NS, Roberts E, Waddy S, et al. Examining Barriers and Practices to Recruitment and Retention in Stroke Clinical Trials. Stroke. 2015;46(8):2232-7.
9. Perry J, Wohlke S, Hessling AC, Schicktanz S. Why take part in personalised cancer research? Patients' genetic misconception, genetic responsibility and incomprehension of stratification-an empirical-ethical examination. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2016.
10. D'Abramo F, Schildmann J, Vollmann J. Research participants' perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16:60.
11. Budin-Ljosne I, Bentzen HB, Solbakk JH, Myklebost O. Genome sequencing in research requires a new approach to consent. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2015;135(22):2031-2.
12. Khaleel SL. In: Clinical Leader. Rare Disease Patient Recruitment And Retention. http://www.clinicalleader.com/doc/rare-disease-patient-recruitment-and-retention-0001. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
13. Penckofer S, Byrn M, Mumby P, Ferrans CE. Improving subject recruitment, retention, and participation in research through Peplau's theory of interpersonal relations. Nurs Sci Q. 2011;24(2):146-51.
14. Bronstein MG, Kakkis ED. Patients as key partners in rare disease drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(11):731-2.
15. Nicholson LM, Schwirian PM, Klein EG, Skybo T, Murray-Johnson L, Eneli I, et al. Recruitment and retention strategies in longitudinal clinical studies with low-income populations. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(3):353-62.
16. Pugliese L, Woodriff M, Crowley O, Lam V, Sohn J, Bradley S. Feasibility of the "Bring Your Own Device" Model in Clinical Research: Results from a Randomized Controlled Pilot Study of a Mobile Patient Engagement Tool. Cureus. 2016;8(3):e535.
17. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(3):266-9.
18. Hofmann B. Broadening consent - and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics. 2009;35(2):125-9.
19. Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, Brock D, Cook-Deegan R, Fullerton SM, et al. Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):34-42.
20. Ploug T, Holm S. Going Beyond the False Dichotomy of Broad or Specific Consent: A Meta-Perspective on Participant Choice in Research Using Human Tissue. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):44-6.
21. Caulfield T, Upshur RE, Daar A. DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Med Ethics. 2003;4:E1.
22. Lind A-S. In: Uppsala Universitet. New law for Biobank researchers http://www.crb.uu.se/biobank-perspectives/item/?tarContentId=496836. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
23. Lind A-S. LifeGene - a Closed Case? In: Information and Law in Transition: Freedom of Speech, the Internet, Privacy and Democracy in the 21st Century. Edited by Lind AS RJ, Österdahl I. Stockholm: Liber; 2015. p. 339-50.
24. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(2):141-6.
25. Wilbanks J, Friend SH. First, design for data sharing. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(4):377-9.
26. Dixon WG, Spencer K, Williams H, Sanders C, Lund D, Whitley EA, et al. A dynamic model of patient consent to sharing of medical record data. BMJ. 2014;348:g1294.
27. Javaid MK, Forestier-Zhang L, Watts L, Turner A, Ponte C, Teare H, et al. The RUDY study platform - a novel approach to patient driven research in rare musculoskeletal diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):150.
28. Pattaro C, Gogele M, Mascalzoni D, Melotti R, Schwienbacher C, De Grandi A, et al. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study: rationale, objectives, and preliminary results. J Transl Med. 2015;13(1):348.
29. Teare HJ, Morrison M, Whitley EA, Kaye J. Towards 'Engagement 2.0': Insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants. Digital Health. 2015;0(0):1-13.
30. Thiel DB, Platt J, Platt T, King SB, Fisher N, Shelton R, et al. Testing an online, dynamic consent portal for large population biobank research. Public Health Genomics. 2015;18(1):26-39.
31. Boutin NT, Mathieu K, Hoffnagle AG, Allen NL, Castro VM, Morash M, et al. Implementation of Electronic Consent at a Biobank: An Opportunity for Precision Medicine Research. J Pers Med. 2016;6(2):17.
32. Coathup V, Teare HJ, Minari J, Yoshizawa G, Kaye J, Takahashi MP, et al. Using digital technologies to engage with medical research: views of myotonic dystrophy patients in Japan. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):51.
33. Spencer K, Sanders C, Whitley EA, Lund D, Kaye J, Dixon WG. Patient Perspectives on Sharing Anonymized Personal Health Data Using a Digital System for Dynamic Consent and Research Feedback: A Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(4):e66.
34. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, Edwards K, Fullerton SM, Kanellopoulou N, et al. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13(5):371-6.
35. Cañada JA, Tupasela A, Snell K. Beyond and within public engagement: a broadened approach to engagement in biobanking. New Genet Soc. 2015;34(4):355-76.
36. D'Abramo F. Biobank research, informed consent and society. Towards a new alliance? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(11):1125-8.
37. Williams H, Spencer K, Sanders C, Lund D, Whitley EA, Kaye J, et al. Dynamic consent: a possible solution to improve patient confidence and trust in how electronic patient records are used in medical research. IMIR Med Inform. 2015;3(1):e3.
38. Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107-15.
39. The Rudy Study. https://research.ndorms.ox.ac.uk/rudy/. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
40. The CHRIS Study (Cooperative Health Research In South Tyrol). In: EURAC Research. http://www.eurac.edu/en/research/health/biomed/projects/Pages/default.aspx. Accssed 25 Nov 2016.
41. Harvard Personal Genome Project. http://www.personalgenomes.org/. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
42. Ball MP, Bobe JR, Chou MF, Clegg T, Estep PW, Lunshof JE, et al. Harvard Personal Genome Project: lessons from participatory public research. Genome Med. 2014;6(2):10.
43. Melham K, Moraia LB, Mitchell C, Morrison M, Teare H, Kaye J. The evolution of withdrawal: negotiating research relationships in biobanking. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2014;10(1):16.
44. Platform for Engaging Everyone Responsibly (PEER). In: Genetic Alliance. http://www.geneticalliance.org/programs/biotrust/peer. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
45. Genetic Alliance. http://www.geneticalliance.org/. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
46. Private Access, Inc. https://www.privateaccess.info/. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
47. Haga SB, O'Daniel J. Public perspectives regarding data-sharing practices in genomics research. Public Health Genomics. 2011;14(6):319-24.
48. Nilstun T, Hermeren G. Human tissue samples and ethics - attitudes of the general public in Sweden to biobank research. Med Health Care Philos. 2006;9(1):81-6.
49. Critchley C, Nicol D, Otlowski M. The impact of commercialisation and genetic data sharing arrangements on public trust and the intention to participate in biobank research. Public Health Genomics. 2015;18(3):160-72.
50. Mascalzoni D. ELSI of Psychiatrics in Population projects. In: European Biobank Week: 13-16 September 2016; Vienna, Austria. 2016.
51. Ludman EJ, Fullerton SM, Spangler L, Trinidad SB, Fujii MM, et al. Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010;5(3):9-16.
52. Burstein MD, Robinson JO, Hilsenbeck SG, McGuire AL, Lau CC. Pediatric data sharing in genomic research: attitudes and preferences of parents. Pediatrics. 2014;133(4):690-7.
53. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet Med. 2010;12(8):486-95.
54. Budin-Ljosne I, Soye KJ, Tasse AM, Knoppers BM, Harris JR. Genotype-driven recruitment: a strategy whose time has come? BMC Med Genomics. 2013;6(1):19.
55. 23andMe. https://www.23andme.com/. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
56. Biankin AV, Piantadosi S, Hollingsworth SJ. Patient-centric trials for therapeutic development in precision oncology. Nature. 2015;526(7573):361-70.
57. Wynne B. Uncertainty and environmental learning. Glob Environ Chang. 1992;2(2):111-27.
58. Dove ES, Joly Y, Knoppers BM. Power to the people: a wiki-governance model for biobanks. Genome Biol. 2012;13(5):158.
59. Steinsbekk KS, Kare MB, Solberg B. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem? Eur J Hum Genet 2013.
60. Fernandez-Aleman JL, Senor IC, Lozoya PA, Toval A. Security and privacy in electronic health records: a systematic literature review. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46(3):541-62.
61. Baker DB, Kaye J, Terry SF. Governance Through Privacy, Fairness, and Respect for Individuals. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2016;4(2):1207.
62. Beskow LM, Dombeck CB, Thompson CP, Watson-Ormond JK, Weinfurt KP. Informed consent for biobanking: consensus-based guidelines for adequate comprehension. Genet Med. 2015;17(3):226-33.
63. Sonne SC, Andrews JO, Gentilin SM, Oppenheimer S, Obeid J, Brady K, et al. Development and pilot testing of a video-assisted informed consent process. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;36(1):25-31.
64. Genome sequencing: What do patients think? Patient Charter. In: Genetic Alliance UK. 2016. https://www.geneticalliance.org.uk/media/2493/my-cancer-my-dna-patient-charter-edits-sept2016.pdf.Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
65. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Informed Consent in Genome-Scale Research: What Do Prospective Participants Think? AJOB Prim Res. 2012;3(3):3-11.
66. Tabor HK, Stock J, Brazg T, McMillin MJ, Dent KM, Yu JH, et al. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(6):1310-9.
67. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues: Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing. 2012. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/PrivacyProgress508-1.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
68. Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program. In: National Institutes of Health. https://www.nih.gov/precision-medicine-initiative-cohort-program. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
69. The Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program - Building a Research Foundation for 21st Century Medicine - Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH. https://www.nih.gov/precision-medicine-initiative-cohort-program/pmi-working-group. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
70. Faglig prioriterte områder i 2016: Interessekonflikter, samtykke og vitenskapelig integritet. In: De nasjonale forskningsetiske komiteene. https://www.etikkom.no/hvem-er-vi-og-hva-gjor-vi/komiteenes-arbeid/faglig-prioritert-omrade-i-2016-interessekonflikter/. In Norwegian. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
71. Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, Tilburt JC, Murad MH, McCormick JB. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:28.
72. Shabani M, Borry P. Challenges of web-based personal genomic data sharing. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2015;11:3.
73. Johnsson L, Eriksson S. Autonomy is a Right, Not a Feat: How Theoretical Misconceptions have Muddled the Debate on Dynamic Consent to Biobank Research. Bioethics 2016.
74. Mascalzoni D, Hicks A, Pramstaller P, Wjst M. Informed consent in the genomics era. PLoS Med. 2008;5(9):e192.
75. McCormack P, Kole A, Gainotti S, Mascalzoni D, Molster C, Lochmuller H, et al. 'You should at least ask'. The expectations, hopes and fears of rare disease patients on large-scale data and biomaterial sharing for genomics research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(10):1403-8.
76. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(5):406-11.
77. Free the data. http://www.free-the-data.org/. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.