Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research

1] Life Sciences and Society Program, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA [2] Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 7.33). 05/2013; 16(1). DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.59
Source: PubMed


Some large population biobanks that house biospecimens and health information for research seek broad consent from participants, whereas others reconsent for specific new studies. Understanding research participants' attitudes and preferences about broad and narrow consent may improve recruitment, retention, and public support.

An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of 4,659 US adults to examine relationships between consent preferences and demographic factors, beliefs about privacy and the value of research, and the perceived trustworthiness of researchers.

Participants preferred broad consent (52%) over study-by-study consent models (48%). Higher preferences for study-by-study consent observed among black non-Hispanic respondents and respondents with lower income and education were explained by differences in the prevalence of one or more beliefs about the study. Respondents with fears about research and those who would feel respected if asked for permission for each research use preferred study-by-study consent. Preference for broad consent was related to the desire not to be bothered with multiple requests and the belief that the study could lead to improved treatments, cures, and lives saved.

These data suggest that support for broad consent is contingent on sufficient information about data use. Work with research participants and community leaders to understand, respond to, and influence opinions about a given, ongoing study may improve uptake of broad consent.

8 Reads
    • "In this study, the study-specific model was the second most preferred, with some participants noting that they felt in control with this model and that it provided the most amount of information about secondary research uses. However, some participants also viewed the study-specific model as time-consuming , wasteful, and burdensome, as also observed in prior studies (Hoeyer et al. 2004; Master et al. 2013; Murphy et al. 2009; Platt et al. 2013). We found some differences in qualitative themes about the study-specific model by race, with White participants in particular believing that this model would lead to too much contact, while having specific information about secondary research uses and being asked permission for each study were particularly important among Black participants. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biobanks are essential resources, and participation by individuals from diverse groups is needed. Various models of consent have been proposed for secondary research use of biospecimens, differing in level of donor control and information received. Data are needed regarding participant preferences for models of consent, particularly among minorities. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 60 women to examine their attitudes about different models of consent. Recruitment was stratified by race (Black/White) and prior biobank participation (yes/no). Two coders independently coded interview transcripts. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. The majority of Black and White participants preferred "broad" consent (i.e., blanket permission for secondary research use of biospecimens), and the second most preferred model for both groups was "study-specific" consent (i.e., consent for each future research study). The qualitative analysis showed that participants selected their most preferred model for 3 major reasons: having enough information, having control over their sample, and being asked for permission. Least preferred was notice model (i.e., participants notified that biospecimens may be used in future research). Attitudes toward models of consent differed somewhat by race and prior biobank participation. Participants preferred models of consent for secondary research use of biospecimens that provided them with both specific and general information, control over their biospecimens, and asked them to give permission for use. Our findings suggest that it will be important for researchers to provide information about future uses of biospecimens to the extent possible and have an explicit permission step for secondary research use.
    Journal of community genetics 08/2015; DOI:10.1007/s12687-015-0248-y
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Genetic counselors have a long-standing history of working on the clinical forefront of implementing new genetic technology. Genomic sequencing is no exception. The rapid advancement of genomic sequencing technologies, including but not limited to next generation sequencing approaches, across all subspecialties of genetic counseling mandates attention to genetic counselor training at both the graduate and continuing education levels. The current era provides a tremendous opportunity for counselors to become actively involved in making genomics more accessible, engaging the population in decisions to undergo sequencing and effectively translating genomic information to promote health and well-being. In this commentary, we explore reasons why genomic sequencing warrants particular consideration and put forward strategies for training program curricula and continuing education programs to meet this need.
    Journal of Genetic Counseling 02/2014; 23(4). DOI:10.1007/s10897-014-9689-4 · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large population biobanks, important resources for genomic research, also present ethical challenges. The Michigan BioTrust for Health makes dried bloodspots (DBS) leftover from newborn screening, including ~4.5 million collected before 2010 without written consent, available for health research. Absent prospectively gathered consent and/or current engagement with 18- to 29-year olds, little is known about opinions and beliefs from this age group about use of the bloodspots for research. We engaged 2,101 students-BioTrust participants and their peers-at information booths at 20 college campuses across the state to educate youth about the BioTrust and gather information about consent preferences and about hopes and concerns about this public health program. We surveyed student stakeholder DBS research consent preferences and fielded a "postengagement" survey to gauge the attitudes of participants and to evaluate the campus engagement. The most prevalent themes in open-ended comments were support for biobank research and concern that Michiganders are not aware of their participation. While 78 % of students said they would, if asked, opt in to the BioTrust, half of these preferred to be contacted each time a researcher sought to use their DBS. Students reported great interest in the topic and strong likelihood to share what they had learned. BioTrust participants are interested in learning about their role in an initiative whose goals they widely support. Public engagement is particularly important to biobank participants who, absent traditional consent practices, are unaware of their participation. Health-fair style engagements were effective for targeting college-aged stakeholders, communicating complex messages, and likely increasing knowledge. Retrospective biobanks and biobanks that collect proxy consent need policies to respect those who would opt out and will need resources to educate participants and conduct community outreach that is a safeguard to public trust.
    Journal of community genetics 06/2014; 5(4). DOI:10.1007/s12687-014-0190-4
Show more