ArticleBioethics2016
Respecting Autonomy Over Time: Policy and Empirical Evidence on Re-Consent in Longitudinal Biomedical Research.
Article in Bioethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Re-consent practices in biobanks in Japan: current status and stakeholder perspectives.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Ethical considerations for the use of ecological momentary assessment in non-suicidal self-injury research.Ethics & behavior · 2025Article
- Reconsenting paediatric research participants for use of identifying data.Journal of medical ethics · 2023Article
- Sharing, reuse, and storage of biosamples among biomedical researchers in Jordan: Practice and concerns.PloS one · 2022Article
- Authority and the Future of Consent in Population-Level Biomedical Research.Public health ethics · 2019Article
- An actionable KCNH2 Long QT Syndrome variant detected by sequence and haplotype analysis in a population research cohort.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Balancing the local and the universal in maintaining ethical access to a genomics biobank.BMC medical ethics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Re-consent in research, the asking for a new consent if there is a change in protocol or to confirm the expectations of participants in case of change, is an under-explored issue. There is little clarity as to what changes should trigger re-consent and what impact a re-consent exercise has on participants and the research project. This article examines applicable policy statements and literature for the prevailing arguments for and against re-consent in relation to longitudinal cohort studies, tissue banks and biobanks. Examples of re-consent exercises are presented, triggers and non-triggers for re-consent discussed and the conflicting attitudes of commentators, participants and researchers highlighted. We acknowledge current practice and argue for a greater emphasis on 'responsive autonomy,' that goes beyond a one-time consent and encourages greater communication between the parties involved. A balance is needed between respecting participants' wishes on how they want their data and samples used and enabling effective research to proceed.
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.