Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40221732›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2025

The research relationship: participant perspectives on consent in biobanking.

Rachel Thompson, Kate Lyle, Gabrielle Samuel, Jo Holliday, Fenella Starkey, Susan Wallace, Anneke Lucassen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Biobanked Liver Organoids: A Roadmap for Precision Hepatology.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

7 authors.

Rachel ThompsonUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kate LyleUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK. kate.lyle@well.ox.ac.uk.
Gabrielle SamuelUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jo HollidayUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Fenella StarkeyUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Susan WallaceUniversity of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Anneke LucassenUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome 219629/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Biological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchInformed ConsentResearch SubjectsAdultAgedDecision MakingEthics, ResearchFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited KingdomBiobankingConsentDataEthicsResearch-relationshipResearch-relationship, GovernanceTissue

Identifiers

PMID40221732
PMCPMC11992699

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.