ArticlePloS one2015
Fair Shares and Sharing Fairly: A Survey of Public Views on Open Science, Informed Consent and Participatory Research in Biobanking.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic literature review of the 'commercialisation effect' on public attitudes towards biobank and genomic data repositories.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Pooled it
- The case for an integrated biobanking initiative in South Asia.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Review
- 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
- Privacy in perspective: research participants' priorities and concerns related to sharing data generated in human neuroscience studies.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- Towards a trusted genomics repository: Identifying commercialisation fears and preferred forms of governance across segments of the community.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- Research participants' perception of ethical issues in stroke genomics and neurobiobanking research in Africa.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Establishing a Pregnancy Lyme Disease Biobank.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Patients' and Members of the Public's Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Patients' knowledge, preferences, and perspectives about data protection and data control: an exploratory survey.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Attitudes Toward Providing Open Access for Use of Biospecimens and Health Records: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Perceptions, attitudes, and willingness of the public in low- and middle-income countries of the Arab region to participate in biobank research.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Patient consent preferences on sharing personal health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: "the more informed we are, the more likely we are to help".BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- It is not a big deal: a qualitative study of clinical biobank donation experience and motives.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Who's afraid of genetic tests?: An assessment of Singapore's public attitudes and changes in attitudes after taking a genetic test.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Qualitative Data Sharing: Participant Understanding, Motivation, and Consent.Qualitative health research · 2022Article
- Patients' and public views and attitudes towards the sharing of health data for research: a narrative review of the empirical evidence.Journal of medical ethics · 2022Review
- Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance.Life sciences, society and policy · 2021Review
- Exploring public concerns for sharing and governance of personal health information: a focus group study.JAMIA open · 2021Article
- A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextBiobanks are important resources which enable large-scale genomic research with human samples and data, raising significant ethical concerns about how participants' information is managed and shared. Three previous studies of the Canadian public's opinion about these topics have been conducted. Building on those results, an online survey representing the first study of public perceptions about biobanking spanning all Canadian provinces was conducted. Specifically, this study examined qualitative views about biobank objectives, governance structure, control and ownership of samples and data, benefit sharing, consent practices and data sharing norms, as well as additional questions and ethical concerns expressed by the public.
resultsOver half the respondents preferred to give a one-time general consent for the future sharing of their samples among researchers. Most expressed willingness for their data to be shared with the international scientific community rather than used by one or more Canadian institutions. Whereas more respondents indicated a preference for one-time general consent than any other model of consent, they constituted less than half of the total responses, revealing a lack of consensus among survey respondents regarding this question. Respondents identified biobank objectives, governance structure and accountability as the most important information to provide participants. Respondents' concerns about biobanking generally centred around the control and ownership of biological samples and data, especially with respect to potential misuse by insurers, the government and other third parties. Although almost half the respondents suggested that these should be managed by the researchers' institutions, results indicate that the public is interested in being well-informed about these projects and suggest the importance of increased involvement from participants. In conclusion, the study discusses the viability of several proposed models for informed consent, including e-governance, independent trustees and the use of exclusion clauses, in the context of these new findings about the views of the Canadian public.
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.