ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
The research relationship: participant perspectives on consent in biobanking.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of Polygenic Scores for Medical and Social Traits Among Biobank Participants and the Public.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2026Article
- Review
- Biobanked Liver Organoids: A Roadmap for Precision Hepatology.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Early-career-researcher-led best practices for social science and behavioural genetics.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- From Biobank to "Bio-Think-Tank": Functional Evolution of UK Biobank in Public Health Policy Making.Public health reviews · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis paper examines challenges associated with the governance of large-scale biobanks. As the collection and interrogation of population-scale data is increasingly positioned as a route to new understandings of health and disease, large-scale biobanks are becoming essential elements of research infrastructure. However, their longitudinal nature presents challenges for governance, particularly in relation to consent. Typically, participants agree to specific activities at recruitment, but evolving technologies make it difficult to anticipate future research applications at this time. Using a case study from UK Biobank, we demonstrate how trying to reconcile new research activities with old consent risks overlooking critical ethical issues -particularly how the proposed activity aligns with participants' understanding and expectation of biobank research.
methodsWe conducted focus groups with UK Biobank participants using individual and group exercises to explore their views on consent and different types of research on their samples and data.
resultsOur findings show that participants locate responsibility for research decisions with the biobank, rather than seeking control through their consent. They perceive their consent not as a one-off agreement but as the `opening act' for a research relationship with the biobank that can be continued through communication.
conclusionsFocussing on the ongoing research relationship -and the practices that sustain it- is more important than the specific wording on consent forms signed at recruitment. We argue this will be more effective in meeting participant expectation as well as supporting ethical research.
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.