ArticleBMC public health2024
Willingness to participate in a personalized health cohort - insights from the swiss health study pilot phase.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 'Bern, get ready', BEready, a household-based cohort study for pandemic preparedness research in Switzerland: pilot study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- The Public Knowledge of Precision Medicine and Genomic Research: A Survey in the Aosta Valley.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis paper explores the feasibility of establishing a large-scale population-based cohort and biobank in Switzerland by assessing potential participants' needs, expectations, and concerns about such an infrastructure providing information on health, lifestyle, and exposure trajectories, the development of disease, and risk factors over time.
methodsWe utilized a scenario-based questionnaire in the Swiss Health Study pilot phase (2020-2021), involving 1349 adults aged 20-69 from the cantons Vaud and Bern. We conducted descriptive statistics supported by R and qualitative content analysis of n = 374 open responses related to attitudes towards research.
resultsWe highlight the benefits and challenges of the scenario-based approach, discuss the sample represented in the pilot phase, and present implications for building a full cohort. We also report on participants' attitudes towards and previous experience with health research. We analyze references regarding informed consent and feedback, attitudes towards the Swiss Health Study, and recommendations on improving its scope, design, and instruments. Results indicate a high interest (90%) in participating in a national health study, with 85% of a random population sample willing to join a long-term cohort. Only 43% were familiar with biobanks, and 44% preferred general consent. Trust was high for Swiss-based public research but lower for researchers from other countries or private sector. Over 95% expressed willingness to complete online questionnaires, undergo physical examination, and donate biosamples. Almost all participants wanted to know the outcomes of the medical tests (99.5%) and the exposure to environmental stressors (95%) from their study center visit. Preferred tools for monitoring sleep, physical activity, and diet were known smartphone apps with automatic data management.
conclusionOverall, the study reveals a positive attitude towards personalized health research, with a strong willingness to share data and samples. Key insights focus the meaning of informed consent for participation, the relevance of sampling and representativeness, as well as the significance and challenges of personalized feedback, especially regarding environmental health concerns. Findings emphasize participants' supportive yet reflexive stances, underscoring the importance of aligning research values with individual values in personalized health research. These insights contribute valuable considerations for refining the scope, design, and instruments of future cohort studies.
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.