Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26354520›Full record

ReviewBMC medical ethics2015

Research participants' perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis.

Flavio D'Abramo, Jan Schildmann, Jochen Vollmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Expanding the boundaries of previously obtained informed consent in research: Views from participants in the Personalised Risk-based Mammascreening study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Biobank for craniosynostosis and faciocraniosynostosis, rare pediatric congenital craniofacial disorders: a study protocol.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Flavio D'AbramoInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Markstraße 258a, D-44799, Bochum, Germany. flavio.dabramo@charite.de.
Jan SchildmannInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Markstraße 258a, D-44799, Bochum, Germany. jan.schildmann@rub.de.
Jochen VollmannInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Markstraße 258a, D-44799, Bochum, Germany. jochen.vollmann@rub.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAppropriate information and consent has been one of the most intensely discussed topics within the context of biobank research. In parallel to the normative debate, many socio-empirical studies have been conducted to gather experiences, preferences and views of patients, healthy research participants and further stakeholders. However, there is scarcity of literature which connects the normative debate about justifications for different consent models with findings gained in empirical research. In this paper we discuss findings of a limited review of socio-empirical research on patients' and healthy research participants' experiences and views regarding consent to biobank research in light of ethical principles for appropriate information and consent.

methodsReview question: Which empirical data are available on research participants' perceptions and views regarding information and elicitation of consent for biobank research? Search of articles published till March 1st 2014 in Pubmed. Review of abstracts and potentially relevant full text articles by two authors independently. As categories for content analysis we defined (i) understanding or recall of information, (ii) preferences regarding information or consent, and (iii) research participants' concerns.

resultsThe search in Pubmed yielded 337 abstracts of which 10 articles were included in this study. Approaches to information and consent varied considerably across the selected studies. The majority of research participants opted for some version of limited consent when being informed about such possibility. Among the factors influencing the type of preferred consent were information about sponsoring of biobank research by pharmaceutical industry and participants' trade-off between privacy and perceived utility. Studies investigating research participants' understanding and recall regarding the consent procedure indicated considerable lack of both aspects. Research participants' perceptions of benefits and harms differ across those studies.

conclusionThe knowledge, perceptions and views of research participants who have undergone a consent procedure within the context of biobank research raise several questions on the issue of how to inform and elicit consent in an ethically acceptable way. In our empirical-ethical analysis we develop suggestions on how the practice of eliciting consent in the biobank context should be improved.

Indexed as

GenomicsPrivacyResearch SubjectsSocial PerceptionBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchComprehensionEthical AnalysisEthics, ResearchHumansInformed ConsentMental RecallMoral ObligationsTherapeutic Misconception

Identifiers

PMID26354520
PMCPMC4563851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.