Prioritizing approaches to engage community members and build trust in biobanks: A survey of attitudes and opinions of adults within outpatient practices at the university of Maryland

Journal of Personalized Medicine

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 264-279

  Overby, Casey Lynnette ^a,b   Maloney, Kristin A ^a   Alestock, Tameka DeShawn ^a   Chavez, Justin ^a,c   Berman, David ^a,d   Sharaf, Reem Maged ^a   Fitzgerald, Tom ^a   Kim, Eun Young ^a,e   Palmer, Kathleen ^a   Shuldiner, Alan R ^a   Mitchell, Braxton D ^a,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY   (United States)

^d KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e Inje University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^f VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Biobank; Biorepository; Data sharing; Preferences; Public opinion; Research participation; Survey; Trust

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOBANK; COMMUNITY INTEGRATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRIVACY; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL ATTITUDE; VIDEORECORDING;

EID: 85015728560     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20754426     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/jpm5030264     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Henderson, G.E.; Cadigan, R.J.; Edwards, T.P.; Conlon, I.; Nelson, A.G.; Evans, J.P.; Davis, A.M.; Zimmer, C.; Weiner, B.J. Characterizing biobank organizations in the US: Results from a national survey. Genome Med. 2013, 5, e3.
2. LiVolsi, V.A.; Clausen, K.P.; Grizzle, W.; Newton, W.; Pretlow, T.G., 2nd; Aamodt, R. The Cooperative Human Tissue Network. An update. Cancer 1993, 71, 1391-1394.
3. Mora, M.; Angelini, C.; Bignami, F.; Bodin, A.M.; Crimi, M.; di Donato, J.H.; Felice, A.; Jaeger, C.; Karcagi, V.; LeCam, Y.; et al. The EuroBioBank Network: 10 years of hands-on experience of collaborative, transnational biobanking for rare diseases. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2014, doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.272.
4. Allen, N.E.; Sudlow, C.; Peakman, T.; Collins, R.; Biobank, U.K. UK biobank data: Come and get it. Sci. Trans. Med. 2014, 6, 224ed4.
5. VA Million Veteran Program. Available online: http://www.research.va.gov/MVP (accessed on 1 Feburary 2015).
6. McCarty, C.A.; Chisholm, R.L.; Chute, C.G.; Kullo, I.J.; Jarvik, G.P.; Larson, E.B.; Li, R.; Masys, D.R.; Ritchie, M.D.; Roden, D.M.; et al. The eMERGE Network: A consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies. BMC Med. Genomics 2011, 4, e13.
7. Gottesman, O.; Kuivaniemi, H.; Tromp, G.; Faucett, W.A.; Li, R.; Manolio, T.A.; Sanderson, S.C.; Kannry, J.; Zinberg, R.; Basford, M.A.; et al. The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network: Past, present, and future. Genet. Med. 2013, 15, 761-771.
8. Kho, A.N.; Hayes, M.G.; Rasmussen-Torvik, L.; Pacheco, J.A.; Thompson, W.K.; Armstrong, L.L.; Denny, J.C.; Peissig, P.L.; Miller, A.W.; Wei, W.Q.; et al. Use of diverse electronic medical record systems to identify genetic risk for type 2 diabetes within a genome-wide association study. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2012, 19, 212-218.
9. Frayling, T.M.; Timpson, N.J.; Weedon, M.N.; Zeggini, E.; Freathy, R.M.; Lindgren, C.M.; Perry, J.R.; Elliott, K.S.; Lango, H.; Rayner, N.W.; et al. A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science 2007, 316, 889-894.
10. Folkersen, L.; van't Hooft, F.; Chernogubova, E.; Agardh, H.E.; Hansson, G.K.; Hedin, U.; Liska, J.; Syvanen, A.C.; Paulsson-Berne, G.; Franco-Cereceda, A.; et al. Association of genetic risk variants with expression of proximal genes identifies novel susceptibility genes for cardiovascular disease. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 2010, 3, 365-373.
11. Aulchenko, Y.S.; Ripatti, S.; Lindqvist, I.; Boomsma, D.; Heid, I.M.; Pramstaller, P.P.; Penninx, B.W.; Janssens, A.C.; Wilson, J.F.; Spector, T.; et al. Loci influencing lipid levels and coronary heart disease risk in 16 European population cohorts. Nat. Genet. 2009, 41, 47-55.
12. Ravid, R. Biobanks for biomarkers in neurological disorders: The Da Vinci bridge for optimal clinico-pathological connection. J. Neurol. Sci. 2009, 283, 119-126.
13. Mero, I.L.; Lorentzen, A.R.; Ban, M.; Smestad, C.; Celius, E.G.; Aarseth, J.H.; Myhr, K.M.; Link, J.; Hillert, J.; Olsson, T.; et al. A rare variant of the TYK2 gene is confirmed to be associated with multiple sclerosis. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2010, 18, 502-504.
14. Nyegaard, M.; Demontis, D.; Foldager, L.; Hedemand, A.; Flint, T.J.; Sorensen, K.M.; Andersen, P.S.; Nordentoft, M.; Werge, T.; Pedersen, C.B.; et al. CACNA1C (rs1006737) is associated with schizophrenia. Mol. Psychiatry 2010, 15, 119-121.
15. Boomsma, D.I.; Willemsen, G.; Sullivan, P.F.; Heutink, P.; Meijer, P.; Sondervan, D.; Kluft, C.; Smit, G.; Nolen, W.A.; Zitman, F.G.; et al. Genome-wide association of major depression: Description of samples for the GAIN Major Depressive Disorder Study: NTR and NESDA biobank projects. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2008, 16, 335-342.
16. Filocamo, M.; Baldo, C.; Goldwurm, S.; Renieri, A.; Angelini, C.; Moggio, M.; Mora, M.; Merla, G.; Politano, L.; Garavaglia, B.; et al. Telethon Network of Genetic Biobanks: A key service for diagnosis and research on rare diseases. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2013, 8, e129.
17. Ahram, M.; Othman, A.; Shahrouri, M. Public perception towards biobanking in Jordan. Biopreserv. Biobank. 2012, 10, 361-365.
18. Kaufman, D.J.; Murphy-Bollinger, J.; Scott, J.; Hudson, K.L. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2009, 85, 643-654.
19. Goldenberg, A.J.; Hull, S.C.; Wilfond, B.S.; Sharp, R.R. Patient perspectives on group benefits and harms in genetic research. Public Health Genomics 2011, 14, 135-142.
20. Rahm, A.K.; Wrenn, M.; Carroll, N.M.; Feigelson, H.S. Biobanking for research: A survey of patient population attitudes and understanding. J. Community Genet. 2013, 4, 445-450.
21. Lemke, A.A.; Wolf, W.A.; Hebert-Beirne, J.; Smith, M.E. Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 2010, 13, 368-377.
22. Taualii, M.; Davis, E.L.; Braun, K.L.; Tsark, J.U.; Brown, N.; Hudson, M.; Burke, W. Native Hawaiian views on biobanking. J. Cancer Educ. 2014, 29, 570-576.
23. Platt, J.; Bollinger, J.; Dvoskin, R.; Kardia, S.L.; Kaufman, D. Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genet. Med. 2014, 16, 11-18.
24. Pullman, D.; Etchegary, H.; Gallagher, K.; Hodgkinson, K.; Keough, M.; Morgan, D.; Street, C. Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: A conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions. Genet. Med. 2012, 14, 229-235.
25. Hall, M.A.; Camacho, F.; Lawlor, J.S.; Depuy, V.; Sugarman, J.; Weinfurt, K. Measuring trust in medical researchers. Med. Care 2006, 44, 1048-1053.
26. Mezuk, B.; Eaton, W.W.; Zandi, P. Participant characteristics that influence consent for genetic research in a population-based survey: The Baltimore epidemiologic catchment area follow-up. Community Genet. 2008, 11, 171-178.
27. Kerath, S.M.; Klein, G.; Kern, M.; Shapira, I.; Witthuhn, J.; Norohna, N.; Kline, M.; Baksh, F.; Gregersen, P.; Taioli, E. Beliefs and attitudes towards participating in genetic research-A population based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, e114.
28. Ruiz-Canela, M.; Valle-Mansilla, J.I.; Sulmasy, D.P. What research participants want to know about genetic research results: The impact of "genetic exceptionalism". J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 2011, 6, 39-46.
29. Nobile, H.; Vermeulen, E.; Thys, K.; Bergmann, M.M.; Borry, P. Why do participants enroll in population biobank studies? A systematic literature review. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2013, 13, 35-47.
30. Helgesson, G.; Hansson, M.G.; Ludvigsson, J.; Swartling, U. Practical matters, rather than lack of trust, motivate non-participation in a long-term cohort trial. Pediatr. Diabet. 2009, 10, 408-412.
31. Sanderson, S.C.; Diefenbach, M.A.; Zinberg, R.; Horowitz, C.R.; Smirnoff, M.; Zweig, M.; Streicher, S.; Jabs, E.W.; Richardson, L.D. Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: A structured interview study. J. Community Genet. 2013, 4, 469-482.
32. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens; Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP): Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
33. Clayton, E.W. So what are we going to do about research using clinical information and samples? IRB 2004, 26, 14-15.
34. Horn, E.J.; Edwards, K.; Terry, S.F. Engaging research participants and building trust. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomark. 2011, 15, 839-840.
35. Haga, S.B.; Zhao, J.Q. Stakeholder views on returning research results. Adv. Genet. 2013, 84, 41-81.
36. Shalowitz, D.I.; Miller, F.G. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: Attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med. 2008, 5, e91.
37. Arar, N.; Seo, J.; Lee, S.; Abboud, H.E.; Copeland, L.A.; Noel, P.; Parchman, M. Preferences regarding genetic research results: Comparing veterans and nonveterans responses. Public Health Genomics 2010, 13, 431-439.
38. O'Daniel, J.; Haga, S.B. Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results. Public Health Genomics 2011, 14, 346-355.
39. Meulenkamp, T.M.; Gevers, S.K.; Bovenberg, J.A.; Koppelman, G.H.; van Hylckama Vlieg, A.; Smets, E.M. Communication of biobanks' research results: What do (potential) participants want? Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2010, 152A, 2482-2492.
40. Appelbaum, P.S.; Roth, L.H.; Lidz, C.W.; Benson, P.; Winslade, W. False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hast. Center Rep. 1987, 17, 20-24.
41. Fabsitz, R.R.; McGuire, A.; Sharp, R.R.; Puggal, M.; Beskow, L.M.; Biesecker, L.G.; Bookman, E.; Burke, W.; Burchard, E.G.; et al. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: Updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 2010, 3, 574-580.
42. Axler, R.E.; Irvine, R.; Lipworth, W.; Morrell, B.; Kerridge, I.H. Why might people donate tissue for cancer research? Insights from organ/tissue/blood donation and clinical research. Pathobiology 2008, 75, 323-329.
43. Haddow, G. "We only did it because he asked us": Gendered accounts of participation in a population genetic data collection. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 69, 1010-1017.
44. Tutton, R. Gift relationships in genetics research. Sci.Cult. 2002, 11, 523-542.
45. 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.
46. Shickle, D. The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 2006, 37, 503-519.
47. Kaye, J.; Curren, L.; Anderson, N.; Edwards, K.; Fullerton, S.M.; Kanellopoulou, N.; Lund, D.; MacArthur, D.G.; Mascalzoni, D.; Shepherd, J.; et al. From patients to partners: Participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2012, 13, 371-376.
48. Thiel, D.B.; Platt, J.; Platt, T.; King, S.B.; Fisher, N.; Shelton, R.; Kardia, S.L. Testing an online, dynamic consent portal for large population biobank research. Public Health Genomics 2015, 18, 26-39.
49. Genetic Alliance Reg4ALL. Available online: https://www.reg4all.org (accessed on 11 January 2015).