ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Individuals' preferences for future biological sample and genomic data sharing in the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic information collected in research settings is a valuable resource that can be shared for future (secondary) research with the consent of the individual. Whether individuals participating in genomic research are comfortable with broad consent and all research sharing scenarios is largely unknown. The Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission) investigated the feasibility and acceptability of population reproductive carrier screening for severe recessive genetic conditions occurring in childhood. Enrolment and consent for participation was completed digitally using an online Portal or REDCap. Consent included an option to complete ten specific questions about preferences for future research use of samples and data. Preferences for future research were completed by 23.5% (4288) of individuals. The remaining 76.5% gave broad consent to data sharing. Those who chose to complete the questions shared similar demographics to the rest of the cohort. Individuals were most permissive of sharing with not-for-profit (78.0%) and university (78.2%) research organisations, for general (79.8%) and health / medical / biomedical research (82.2%). People were less likely to consent for use by governments (59.2%) and commercial organisations (33.7%). Nearly 60% of people want to be notified every time their data is shared. Updates to consent preferences were made 1785 times, by 282 people. This study supports the need for research programmes to facilitate flexible models of consent, including specific and dynamic consent. It also demonstrates a scalable model in which participant-led choices contribute to reduced ambiguity about data sharing permissions.
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.