Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28640237›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2018

Broad consent for health care-embedded biobanking: understanding and reasons to donate in a large patient sample.

Gesine Richter, Michael Krawczak, Wolfgang Lieb, Lena Wolff, Stefan Schreiber, Alena Buyx

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Broad consent in the emergency department: a cross sectional study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Health Research with Data in a Time of Privacy: Which Information do Patients Want?Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023
    Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gesine RichterInstitute of Epidemiology, Christan-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Michael KrawczakInstitute of Medical Informatics und Statistics, Christan-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Wolfgang LiebInstitute of Epidemiology, Christan-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Lena WolffDivision of Biomedical Ethics, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Stefan SchreiberInstitute of Clinical Molecular Biology, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Alena BuyxDivision of Biomedical Ethics, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PurposeTo facilitate ethically acceptable and practically successful health care-embedded biobanking, the attitudes and understanding of patients and their motivation to participate need to be explored.MethodsA questionnaire study was conducted among 760 outpatients of a northern German university hospital to assess their awareness of, and motivation for giving broad consent to health care-embedded biobanking, also addressing the issue of feedback on individual-level research findings.ResultsThe overall willingness to give broad consent was high (86.9%) in our study, even though the subjective and objective understanding of patients was found to be only modest. Most participants who consented did so for prosocial reasons (altruism, solidarity, reciprocity, gratitude), whereas self-interest or worries about disadvantages played only a marginal role. Better objective understanding was associated with both a greater demand for feedback on individual research findings and a higher willingness to consent. Intermittent modification of the information material provided by the hospital led to significantly improved objective understanding.ConclusionPatient willingness to give broad consent to health care-embedded biobanking is high, with prosocial reasons driving decision making more than factual knowledge and approval or disapproval of specific consent elements. Future efforts to improve the information material used in health care-embedded biobanking should therefore emphasize prosocial reasons to consent.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInformed ConsentAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overComprehensionDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationSurveys and QuestionnairesTissue and Organ Procurement

Identifiers

PMID28640237
OpenAlexW2671394674

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.