ReviewBMC medical ethics2015
Research participants' perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis.
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.
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
55 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2023Trial
- Comparison of Video, App, and Standard Consent Processes on Decision-Making for Biospecimen Research: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Trial
- 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
- 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
- Research opportunities in precision oncology: perspectives on biospecimen and genomic data sharing from adults with cancer in Ireland.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Critical consideration towards broad consent by patient experts: results of a semi-structured interview study on the secondary use of medical data.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Building a Decentralized Biobanking App for Research Transparency and Patient Engagement: Participatory Design Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Dynamic governance: A new era for consent for stem cell research.Stem cell reports · 2024Review
- When Biobanks Meet Religion: Association Between Religiosity and Attitudes of Polish Medical Students Toward Biobanking of Human Biological Material for Research Purposes.Journal of religion and health · 2024Article
- "My Blood, You Know, My Biology Being out There…": Consent and Participant Control of Biological Samples.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Do biobanks need pharmacists? Support of pharmacy students to biobanking of human biological material for pharmaceutical research and development.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Access to and interest in human milk research opportunities among Black pregnant and postpartum people.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Pet owner perspectives, motivators and concerns about veterinary biobanking.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Identifying facilitators of and barriers to the adoption of dynamic consent in digital health ecosystems: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- To donate or not to donate? Future healthcare professionals' opinions on biobanking of human biological material for research purposes.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Biobanking and consenting to research: a qualitative thematic analysis of young people's perspectives in the North East of England.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Observational
- Get this thing out of my body! Factors determining consent for translational oncology research: a qualitative research.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Article
- "I Want to Know Everything ... ": The Return of Research Results and the Importance of Transparency in the Acceptability of Lumbar Punctures for African American Older Adults.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2023Article
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
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
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.