ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2015
Scientists' perspectives on consent in the context of biobanking research.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biobank consent preferences and implications for a mixed consent model: biomedical researchers vs. community stakeholders in a semi-urban Yoruba community, Nigeria.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Researchers' Perspectives Regarding Ethical Issues of Biobank Research in the Arab Region.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2024Article
- Consent as a compositional act - a framework that provides clarity for the retention and use of data.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2024Article
- Awareness, Attitudes and Willingness to Donate Biological Samples to a Biobank: A Survey of a Representative Sample of Polish Citizens.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence in medicine: A comprehensive survey of medical doctor's perspectives in Portugal.PloS one · 2023Article
- Stakeholder engagement to ensure the sustainability of biobanks: a survey of potential users of biobank services.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Identification and Re-consent of Existing Cord Blood Donors for Creation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines for Potential Clinical Applications.Stem cells translational medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluating models of consent in changing health research environments.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- Current Status and Future Challenges of Biobank Research in Malaysia.Asian bioethics review · 2021Article
- The Ethics of Consent in a Shifting Genomic Ecosystem.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2021Review
- Can Blockchain Solve the Dilemma in the Ethics of Genomic Biobanks?Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Researchers' Perspectives on Informed Consent and Ethical Review of Biobank Research in South Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- Public Attitudes toward Biobanking of Human Biological Material for Research Purposes: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Review
- Can dynamic consent facilitate the protection of biomedical big data in biobanking in Malaysia?Asian bioethics review · 2019Article
- Data in question: A survey of European biobank professionals on ethical, legal and societal challenges of biobank research.PloS one · 2019Article
- An Introduction to Starting a Biobank.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2019Review
- Legal & ethical compliance when sharing biospecimen.Briefings in functional genomics · 2018Article
- The social dimension of biobanking: objectives and challenges.Life sciences, society and policy · 2017Article
- Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there's still a consent problem.PLoS biology · 2017Review
- A qualitative study of participants' views on re-consent in a longitudinal biobank.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most bioethics studies have focused on capturing the views of patients and the general public on research ethics issues related to informed consent for biobanking and only a handful of studies have examined the perceptions of scientists. Capturing the opinions of scientists is important because they are intimately involved with biobanks as collectors and users of samples and health information. In this study, we performed interviews with scientists followed by qualitative analysis to capture the diversity of perspectives on informed consent. We found that the majority of scientists in our study reported their preference for a general consent approach although they do not believe there to be a consensus on consent type. Despite their overall desire for a general consent model, many reported several concerns including donors needing some form of assurance that nothing unethical will be done with their samples and information. Finally, scientists reported mixed opinions about incorporating exclusion clauses in informed consent as a means of limiting some types of contentious research as a mechanism to assure donors that their samples and information are being handled appropriately. This study is one of the first to capture the views of scientists on informed consent in biobanking. Future studies should attempt to generalize findings on the perspectives of different scientists on informed consent for biobanking.
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.