Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29149849›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

Biobanking in Israel 2016-17; expressed perceptions versus real life enrollment.

Gideon Koren, Daniella Beller, Daphna Laifenfeld, Iris Grossman, Varda Shalev

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 79% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gideon KorenResearch Institute, Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, Israel. gidiup_2000@yahoo.com.
Daniella BellerResearch Institute, Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Daphna LaifenfeldTeva Inc, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Iris GrossmanTeva Inc, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Varda ShalevResearch Institute, Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Maccabi Institute for Health Services Research · ILTeva Pharmaceuticals (Israel) · ILTel Aviv University · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs part of the preparations to establish a population-based biobank in a large Israeli health organization, we aimed to investigate through focus groups the knowledge, perceptions and attitudes of insured Israelis, toward biobanking, and then, after input from focus groups' participants, to empirically assess the impact of a revised recruitment process on recruitment rates.

methods1) Six Focus group discussions were conducted (n = 10 per group) with individuals who had routine blood laboratory tests taken in the last 2 years. 2) After addressing the issues raised in the focus groups and revising the recruitment process, individuals undergoing routine blood tests in phlebotomy clinics (N = 10,262) were invited to participate in the future biobank.

resultsAt the outset of the focus groups there was an overall positive response to the prospect of a population-based biobank. Concerns revolved around infringement on privacy, fears of the "big brother"(e.g. insurance companies), and anxiety about inequality. Reaction to the language of the informed consent document revolved around concerns over ability to maintain anonymity, to withdraw consent, involvement of commercial entities, and the general tenor of the informed consent, which was perceived as legalistic and unilateral. In general, the longer participants were exposed to discussion about the biobank, the less likely they were to consent to sign in. Overall, only 20% (12) of the 60 participants stated they would agree to sign in by the end of the 2 hour group session. The feedback obtained from the focus groups was used in the second stage ("real life") of the study. A team of recruiters received extensive training to enable fruitful discussion and a detailed explanation to questions and concerns raised during the recruitment process. During the second stage of the study, after revising the consent form and training recruiters, a 53% consent rate was observed among 10,262 participants, more than 4 fold higher than estimated at the focus group stage.

conclusionsThe qualitative focus group research helped identify important perceptions and concerns, which were subsequently addressed in the revised consent form and in the discussion the recruiters had with potential biobank donors.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthBiological Specimen BanksChoice BehaviorInformed ConsentPatient SelectionAdultAgedConfidentialityConsent FormsFemaleFocus GroupsHumansIsraelMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionBiobankingInformed consent formPopulation based biobankingRisk perceptionVolunteers

Identifiers

PMID29149849
PMCPMC5693555
OpenAlexW2768377200

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.