Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32414333›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Developing model biobanking consent language: what matters to prospective participants?

Laura M Beskow, Catherine M Hammack-Aviran, Kathleen M Brelsford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Laura M BeskowCenter for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA. laura.m.beskow@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9314-1915
Catherine M Hammack-AviranCenter for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
Kathleen M BrelsfordCenter for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.

Funding

Beyond Data Security: Promoting Confidentiality and Advancing ScienceR01HG007733 · NHGRI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BESKOW, LAURA M. · 2014 to 2016
$1.3M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG007733
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEfforts to improve informed consent have led to calls for providing information a reasonable person would want to have, in a way that facilitates understanding of the reasons why one might or might not want to participate. At the same time, advances in large-scale genomic research have expanded both the opportunities and the risks for participants, families, and communities. To advance the use of effective consent materials that reflect this landscape, we used empirical data to develop model consent language, as well as brief questions to assist people in thinking about their own values relative to participation.

methodsWe conducted in-person interviews to gather preliminary input on these materials from a diverse sample (n = 32) of the general population in Nashville, Tennessee. We asked them to highlight information they found especially reassuring or concerning, their hypothetical willingness to participate, and their opinions about the values questions.

resultsConsent information most often highlighted as reassuring included the purpose of the biobank, the existence and composition of a multidisciplinary oversight committee, the importance of participants' privacy and efforts to protect it, and controlled access to a scientific database. Information most often highlighted as concerning included the deposition of data in a publicly accessible database, the risk of unintended access to data, the potential for non-research use of data, and use of medical record information in general. Seventy-five percent of participants indicated initial willingness to participate in the hypothetical biobank; this decreased to 66% as participants more closely considered the information over the course of the interview. A large majority rated the values questions as helpful.

conclusionsThese results are consistent with other research on public perspectives on biobanking and genomic cohort studies, suggesting that our model language effectively captures commonly expressed reasons for and against participation. Our study enriches this literature by connecting specific consent form disclosures with qualitative data regarding what participants found especially reassuring or concerning and why. Interventions that facilitate individuals' closer engagement with consent information may result in participation decisions more closely aligned with their values.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksLanguageConsent FormsHumansInformed ConsentProspective StudiesBiobankingInformed consentPatient/participant perspectivesPrecision medicine researchResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID32414333
PMCPMC7227271

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.