Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26801345›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2016

Participant views on consent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era.

Karen L Edwards, Diane M Korngiebel, Lesley Pfeifer, Deborah Goodman, Anne Renz, Lari Wenzel, Deborah J Bowen, Celeste M Condit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Karen L EdwardsEpidemiology, University of California, Irvine, 224 Irvine Hall, Mail Code: 7550, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. kedward1@uci.edu.
Diane M KorngiebelBiomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lesley PfeiferEpidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Deborah GoodmanEpidemiology, University of California, Irvine, 224 Irvine Hall, Mail Code: 7550, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.
Anne RenzGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lari WenzelMedicine and Public Health, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Deborah J BowenUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Celeste M ConditCommunication Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.

Funding

Univ.of Calif., Irvine Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA062203 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Christine Hui · 1994 to 2026
$57.9M
University of California Health Participation in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR001414 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M, VILAIN, ERIC J. · 2015 to 2023
$35.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001414NCI NIH HHS P30 CA062203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) has created considerable discussions about research participant issues including re-consent and how and when to incorporate the patient experience into clinical trials. Within the changing landscape of genetic and genomic research, the preferences of participants are lacking yet are needed to inform policy. With the growing use of biobanks intended to support studies, including the national research cohort proposed under the PMI, understanding participant preferences, including re-consent, is a pressing concern. The Participant Issues Project (PIP) addresses this gap, and here we present data on participant attitudes regarding re-consent and broad consent in research studies. PIP study participants came from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and included cancer patients, relatives, and controls. Thirty telephone interviews were conducted and analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Results indicate that in some scenarios, re-consent is needed. Most participants agreed that re-consent was necessary when the study direction changed significantly or a child participant became an adult, but not if the genetic variant changed. Most participants' willingness to participate in research would not be affected if the researcher or institution profited or if a broad consent form were used. Participants emphasized re-consent to provide information and control of the use of their data, now relevant for tailored treatment, while also prioritizing research as important. In the era of precision medicine, it is essential that policy makers consider participant preferences with regard to use of their materials and that participants understand genetic and genomic research and its harms and benefits as well as what broad consent entails, including privacy and re-identification risks.

Indexed as

Broad consentConsentGeneticsParticipant viewsPrecision medicineRe-consent

Identifiers

PMID26801345
PMCPMC4796049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.