De-identified genomic data sharing: the research participant perspective

Journal of Community Genetics

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 173-181

  Goodman, Deborah ^a   Johnson, Catherine O ^b   Bowen, Deborah ^c   Smith, Megan ^b   Wenzel, Lari ^b   Edwards, Karen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Data linkage; De identification; Genomic research; Participant views; Precision Medicine

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ANONYMISED DATA; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA PROCESSING; DE INDENTIFIED GENOMIC DATA SHARING; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALIGNANT NEOPLASM; MEDICAL HISTORY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85017116340     PISSN: 1868310X     EISSN: 18686001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12687-017-0300-1     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Budimir D, Polasek O, Marusic A et al (2011) Ethical aspects of human biobanks: a systematic review. Croat Med 52:262–279
2. Caulfield T, Burningham S, Joly Y et al (2014) A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. J Law Biosci 1(1):94–110
3. Collins FS, Varmus H (2015) A new initiative on Precision Medicine. N Engl J Med 372:793–795
4. Condit CM, Korngiebel DM, Pfeifer M, Renz AD, Bowen DJ, Kaufman D, Mercer Kollar LM, Edwards K (2015) What should be the character of the researcher-participant relationship? Views of participants in a longstanding cancer genetic registry. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 37(4):1–10
5. Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, Stocking C, Kodish E et al (1995) Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 13(5):1062–1072
6. Goodman D, Johnson C, Wenzel L, Bowen D, Condit C, Edwards KL (2016) Consent issues in genetic research: views of research participants. Public Health Genomics 19(4):220–228
7. Haddow G, Laurie G, Cunningham-Burley S, Hunter KG (2007) Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: a modest interdisciplinary proposal. Soc Sci Med 64(2):272–282
8. Hoeyer K (2012) Trading in cold blood? In: Dabrock P, Taupitz J, Ried J (eds) Trust in biobanking: dealing with ethical, legal and social issues in an emerging field, vol 33. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 21–41
9. Jamal L, Sapp JC, Lewis K et al (2014) Research participants’ attitudes towards the confidentiality of genomic sequence information. Eur J Hum Genet 22(8):964–968
10. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger JM, Scott J, Hudson KL (2009) Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet 85(5):643–654
11. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Herbert-Beirne J, Smith ME (2010) Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 13(6):368–377
12. McCarty CA, Garber A, Reeser JC, Fost NC (2011) Study newsletters, community and ethics advisory boards, and focus group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank. Am J Med Genet A 155A(4):737–741
13. McCarty CA, Nair A, Austin DM, Giampietro PF (2007) Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project. Community Genet 10(1):2–9
14. McGuire AL, Oliver JM, Slashinski MJ et al (2011) To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genet Med 13(11):948–955
15. Okun MA, Schultz A (2003) Age and motives for volunteering: testing hypotheses derived from socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychol Aging 18(2):231–239
16. Oliver JM, Slashinski MJ, Wang T et al (2011) Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants’ perspectives. Public Health Genomics 15(2):106–114
17. Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, Chisholm RL, Wolf WA (2009) Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am J Med Genet A 142A(2):188–198
18. R Core Team (2015). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/; MASS package code for ordinal logistic regression: Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth Edition. Springer, New York. ISBN 0–387–95457-0.
19. Shabani M, Bezuidenhout L, Borry P (2014) Attitudes of research participants and the general public towards genomic data sharing: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 14(8):1053–1065
20. Steinsbekk KS, Ursin LO, Skolbekken JA, Solberg B (2013) We’re not in it for the money lay peoples moral intuitions on commercial use of their biobank. Med Health Care Philos 16(2):151–162
21. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM et al (2010) Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet Med 12(8):486–495