ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
Introducing dynamic consent for improved trust and privacy in research involving human biological material and associated data in South Africa.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Attitudes of Longitudinal Study Participants and Members of the Public Towards Data Sharing for Secondary Research: A Survey Based Approach.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Beyond mistrust: Diverse biobanking preferences among parents and adolescents with sickle cell disease.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- Review
- Bridging ethical gaps in digital health research: a framework for informed consent aligned with NIH guidance.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Research Ethics Committees on the Challenges of Human Genomic Research Participation in Ethiopia.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Biomedical research using human biological material and data is essential for improving human health, but it requires the active participation of many human volunteers in addition to the distribution of data. As a result, it has raised numerous vexing questions related to trust, privacy and consent. Trust is essential in biomedical research as it relates directly to the willingness of participants to continue participating in research. Privacy and the protection of personal information also influence trust. Informed consent has proven to be insufficient as it cannot overcome the informational deficit between primary and unknown future uses of material and data and is therefore not fully informed and invalid. Broad consent is also problematic as it takes full control of samples and data flow from the research participant and inherently requires that a participant must trust that the researcher will use their material or data in a manner that they would find acceptable. This paper attempts to offer some insight into how these related issues can be overcome. It introduces dynamic consent as a consent model in research involving human biological material and its associated data. Dynamic consent is explained, as well as its claims of superiority in instances where future research is possible. It is also shown how dynamic consent contributes to better control of the samples and data by the research participant, and how trust may be improved by using this consent model. Dynamic consent's co-existence with and support of the South African Protection of Personal Information Act of 2013 is also assessed. The limitations of dynamic consent are also discussed.
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.