ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009
A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
- Implementing broad consent for research with routinely collected clinical data and residual biosamples in a cancer hospital: using mixed methods approach to evaluate consent rates and patients' perspectives.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- "A Double-Edged Sword": A Brief History of Genomic Data Governance and Genetic Researcher Perspectives on Data Sharing.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024Article
- "As Long as You Ask": A Qualitative Study of Biobanking Consent-Oncology Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Attitudes, Motivations, and Experiences-the B-PPAE Study.The oncologist · 2019Article
- Paying Tribute to Henrietta Lacks at Tuskegee University and at The Virginia Henrietta Lacks Commission, Richmond, Virginia.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2019Article
- Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2016Review
- Consenting postpartum women for use of routinely collected biospecimens and/or future biospecimen collection.Journal of community genetics · 2016Article
- Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention.BMC medical ethics · 2016Review
- Article
- Contributing to research via biobanks: what it means to cancer patients.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014Article
- Public attitudes regarding the use of electronic health information and residual clinical tissues for research.Journal of community genetics · 2014Article
- Proposed regulations for research with biospecimens: responses from stakeholders at CTSA consortium institutions.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2014Article
- Public views on the donation and use of human biological samples in biomedical research: a mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2013Article
- An effective multisource informed consent procedure for research and clinical practice: an observational study of patient understanding and awareness of their roles as research stakeholders in a cancer biobank.BMC medical ethics · 2013Observational
- Consent for use of clinical leftover biosample: a survey among Chinese patients and the general public.PloS one · 2012Article
- Inclusion of residual tissue in biobanks: opt-in or opt-out?PLoS biology · 2012Article
- Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of this study were to determine which consent procedure patients prefer for use of stored tissue for research purposes and what the effects of consent procedures on actual consenting behaviour are.
methodsWe offered 264 cancer patients three different consent procedures: 'one-time general consent' (asked written informed consent), 'opt-out plus' (had the opportunity to opt out by a form), or the standard hospital procedure (control group). The two intervention groups received a specific leaflet about research with residual tissue and verbal information. The control group only received a general hospital leaflet including opt-out information, which is the procedure currently in use. Subsequently, all patients received a questionnaire to examine their preferences for consent procedures.
resultsIn all, 99% of patients consented to research with their residual tissue. In the 'one-time consent' group 85% sent back their consent form. Patients preferred 'opt-out plus' (43%) above 'one-time consent' (34%) or 'opt-out' (16%), whereas 8% indicated that they did not need to receive information about research with residual tissues or be given the opportunity to make a choice.
conclusionsThe 'opt-out plus' procedure, which places fewer demands on administrative resources than 'one-time consent', can also address the information needs of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.