Recontacting pediatric research participants for consent when they reach the age of majority

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1-9

  Knoppers, Bartha Maria ^a   Sénécal, Karine ^b   Boisjou, Joanne ^c   Borry, Pascal ^d   Cornel, Martina C ^e   Fernandez, Conrad V ^f   Grewal, Jasjote ^g   Holm, Incrid A ^h,i   Nelson, Erin ^j   Pinxten, Wim ^k   Shabani, Mahsa ^d   Tassé, Anne Marie ^l   Zawati, Ma'n ^a,b   Clayton, Ellen Wright ^m  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c Canadian Health Measures Survey of Statistics   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^e VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^g LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

^h BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁱ HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^k HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^l Public Population Project in Genomics and Society   (Belgium)

^m VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DUTY TO RECONTACT; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN SCREENING; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PEDIATRICS; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH SUBJECT;

AGE FACTORS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DUTY TO RECONTACT; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFORMED CONSENT; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; NEONATAL SCREENING; PEDIATRICS; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 85012159456     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Safeguarding Children: Pediatric Medical Countermeasure Research. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013, p. 26.
2. For example, see Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, 2002, guidelines 4 and 6;
3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Guidelines on Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2009, s. 4.8-4.10.
4. Alderson P. Competent children? Minors' consent to health care treatment and research. Social Science and Medicine 2007;65(ll):2272-2283.
5. Quebec. Civil Code of Quebec, L. R. Q. c. C-1991. art. 21, al. 5.
6. The Netherlands, Amended Medicinal Research involving Human Subjects Act (Regulations on medical research involving human Subjects, 1 March 2006), S.-4-5 [unofficial translation];
7. see also Norway. Lov om medisinsk og helsefaglig forskning (helseforskningsloven) [the Health Research Act], 20. 6. Nr. 44 2008. § 17 and 18.
8. European Commission. Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR). EU No 536/2014, art. 32 (3).
9. Clayton EW. How much control do children and adolescents have over genomic testing, parental access to their results, and parental communication of those results to others? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015;43(3):538-544.
10. Canadian Paediatric Society. Ethical issues in health research in children. Paediatrics and Child Health 2008;13(8):707-712. The Canadian Paediatric Society reaffirmed the contents of this document in 2016.
11. Mohdi N, Vohra J, Preston J, et al. Guidance on clinical research involving infants, children and young people: An update for researchers and research ethics committees. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2014;99(10):887-891.
12. For example, the legislated age of medical majority is 15 years in Denmark, 14 years in Portugal, 15 years in Slovenia, and 16 years in Spain. For more information, see Stultiëns, Goffin T, Borry P, et al. Minors and informed consent: A comparative approach. European Journal of Health Law 2007;14(1):21-46;
13. Coleman DL, Roseoff PM. The legal authority of mature minors to consent to general medical treatment. Pediatrics 2013;131(4):786-793.
14. Gillick competency test for any minor under 16. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1985) 3 All ER 402.
15. Ontario. Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S. O. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A. s. 4 (1).
16. Wallace SE, Gourna EG, Laurie G, et al. Respecting autonomy over time: Policy and empirical evidence on re-consent in longitudinal biomedical research. Bioethics 2015; doi:10.1111/bioe.12165;
17. Brothers KB, Lynch JA, Aufox SA, et al. Practical guidance on informed consent for pediatric participants in a biorepository. Mayo Clinic 2014:89(11):1471-1480;
18. Hens K, Van El CE, Borry P, et al. Developing a policy for paediatric biobanks: Principles for good practice. European Journal of Human Genetics 2013;21(1):2-7;
19. Giesbertz NAA, Bredenoord AL, van Delden J J M. When children become adults: Should biobanks re-contact? PLOS Medicine 2016; doi:10.1371/journal. pmed.1001959.
20. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa: Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, 2014.
21. Ries NM. Longitudinal studies involving children and adolescents. In: Avard D, Samuel J, Knoppers BM, Paediatric Research in Canada. Montreal: Les Editions Themis, 2009, p. 86.
22. See ref. 2, Council for International Organizations of Medical Science, 2002, guideline 14.
23. See ref. 2, Council for International Organizations of Medical Science, 2002, guideline 9; see ref. 15, s. 3.4.
24. Council of Europe-Committee of Ministers. Recommendation 2006 (4) of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Research on Biological Materials of Human Origin. Strasbourg, 2006.
25. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations, 1989, art. 3.2.
26. Zawati M, Parry D, Knoppers BM. The best interests of the child and the return of results in genetic research: International comparative perspectives. BMC Medical Ethics 2014;15:72.
27. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and child assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 1995;95(2):314-317.
28. European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation). Brussels: European Commission, 2012.
29. Boycott K, Hartley T, Adam S, et al. The clinical application of genomic-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: Position statement of the Canadian College of Medical Genetics. Journal of Medical Genetics 2015;52(7):431-437.
30. American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors. ACMG policy statement: Updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 2015;17(1):68-69.
31. Botkin JR, Belmont JW, Berg JS, et al. Points to consider: Ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. American Journal of Human Genetics 2015;97(1):6-21.
32. LifeLines. LifeLines in General. https://www.lifelines.nl/lifelines-research/general.
33. University of Bristol. Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac.
34. Boyd A, Tilling K, Cornish R, et al. Professionally designed information materials and telephone reminders improved consent response rates: Evidence from an RCT nested within a cohort study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015;68 (8) :877-887..
35. Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study, Revised Protocol. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2012, p. 11.
36. Alahmad GH, Dierickx K. Confidentiality, informed consent and children's participation in the Saudi biobank governance: A comparative study. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 2014;20(11); 5681-685.
37. Department of Health and Human Services. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Federal Register 2015;80(173):53933-54061.
38. Recommendation CM/Rec (2016) 6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on research on biological materials of human origin (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 May 2016 at the 1256th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies).
39. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. October 2000. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/i 7-c-e.html.
40. Fernandez CV, Kodish E, Weijer C. Returning research results to subjects. An ethical imperative. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2003;25(3):12-19.
41. Children's Oncology Group. Homepage. https://www.childrensoncologygroup. org/.
42. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1968, p. 9..
43. Knoppers BM, Avard D, Senecal K. Newborn screening programmes: Emerging biobanks? Norsk Epidemiologi 2012;21(2):163-168.
44. Knoppers BM, Senecal K, Borry p, et al. Whole-genome sequencing in newborn screening programs. Science Translational Medicine 2014;6(229):229cm2.
45. U. S. Congress. 113th Congress (2013-2014). H. R. 1281, Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-240.
46. Knoppers BM, Laberge C. Genetic Screening from Newborns to DNA Typing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.
47. Genomeweb. Off and Running. July 2, 2015. https://www.genomeweb.com/scan/and-running.
48. Paquette ET, Ross LF. Consent is the cornerstone of ethically valid research: Ethical issues in recontacting subjects who enrolled in research as a minor. American Journal of Bioethics 2015, 15(10):61-63.
49. Dove E, Avard D, Black L. et al. Emerging issues in paediatric health research consent forms in Canada: Working towards best practices. BMC Medical Ethics 2013;14:5.
50. Ries N, LeGrandeur J, Caulfield T. Handling ethical, legal and social issues in birth cohort studies involving genetic research: Responses from studies in six countries. BMC Medical Ethics 2010;11(4):1-9.
51. Rush A, Battisti R, Barton B, et al. Opinions of young adults on re-consenting for biobanking. Journal of Pediatrics 2016;167(4):925-930.
52. Resnik DB. Re-consent upon reaching the age of majority: Ethical issues. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices 2014;10(2).
53. Goldenberg AJ, Hull SC, Botkin JR, et al. Pediatric biobanks: Approaching informed consent for continuing research after children grow up. Journal of Pediatrics 2011;155(4):578-583;
54. Hens K, Nys H, Cassiman JJ, et al. The storage and use of biological tissue samples from minors for research: A focus group study. Public Health Genomics 2011;14(2):68-76.