ArticleScience and engineering ethics2004
Strategies for consulting with the community: the cases of four large-scale genetic databases.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- No person left behind: Mapping the health policy landscape for genomics research in the Caribbean.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2022Review
- Responsiveness and adaptability in community engaged biobanking research: experiences from a Hispanic community.Journal of community genetics · 2019Article
- Constructing populations in biobanking.Life sciences, society and policy · 2015Article
- Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.Journal of personalized medicine · 2014Article
- Community engagement about genetic variation research.Population health management · 2012Article
- Diverse perceptions of the informed consent process: implications for the recruitment and participation of diverse communities in the National Children's Study.American journal of community psychology · 2012Article
- Patient perspectives on group benefits and harms in genetic research.Public health genomics · 2011Article
- Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing.Public health genomics · 2010Article
- Community engagement in biobanking: Experiences from the eMERGE Network.Genomics, society, and policy · 2010Article
- Biobank Recruitment: Motivations for Nonparticipation.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2009Article
- The informed consent aftermath of the genetic revolution. An Italian example of implementation.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2008Article
- Defining the spectrum of genome policy.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2006Review
- Exploring the ethics of clinical research in an urban community.American journal of public health · 2006Article
- Navigating an ethical patchwork--human gene banks.Nature biotechnology · 2005Article
- The role of databank managers as guardians of public interests. Commentary on "Strategies for consulting with the community: the cases of four large-scale databanks" (Godard et al.).Science and engineering ethics · 2004Article
- Consulting the community: limits and expectations. Commentary on "Strategies for consulting with the community: the cases of four large-scale databanks" (Godard et al.).Science and engineering ethics · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large-scale genetic databases are being developed in several countries around the world. However, these databases depend on public participation and acquiescence. In the past, information campaigns have been waged and little attention has been paid to dialogue. Nowadays, it is important to include the public in the development of scientific research and to encourage a free, open and useful dialogue among those involved. This paper is a review of community consultation strategies as part of four proposed large-scale genetic databases in Iceland, Estonia, United Kingdom and Quebec. The Iceland Health Sector Database and Estonian Genome Project have followed a "communication approach" in order to address public concerns, whereas, UK Biobank and Quebec CARTaGENE have chosen a "partnership approach" to involve the public in decision-making processes. Following a comparison of community consultation strategies, the main concerns of the public are examined as well as the challenges of involving communities. Importantly, reported across all groups is the concern for confidentiality, respect of the individual, transparency, and the donor's right to access to their own result. However, even if researchers demonstrate a willingness to respect values such as fair representation, transparency and accountability, there is still a risk that the public will mistrust researchers and simply will not participate in sufficient numbers. Complications may arise when individual and community interests conflicts. The implementation of a partnership approach is definitely involving and costly; however, if used properly, this method can improve both participation and so database development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15362702What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.