Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: Stakeholder perspectives

被引:37
作者
Beskow, Laura M. [1 ,2 ]
Friedman, Joelle Y. [3 ]
Hardy, N. Chantelle [3 ]
Lin, Li [3 ]
Weinfurt, Kevin P. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Duke Inst Genome Sci & Policy, Ctr Genome Eth Law & Policy, Durham, NC 27708 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Duke Translat Med Inst, Durham, NC 27708 USA
[3] Duke Univ, Sch Med, Duke Clin Res Inst, Ctr Clin & Genet Econ, Durham, NC 27708 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
informed consent; consent forms; biological specimen banks; FORMS; PARTICIPANTS; READABILITY; DECISIONS; TRIALS;
D O I
10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181ead64d
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Purpose: Complex and sometimes controversial information must be conveyed during the consent process for participation in biorepositories, and studies suggest that consent documents in general are growing in length and complexity. As a first step toward creating a simplified biorepository consent form, we gathered data from multiple stakeholders about what information was most important for prospective participants to know when making a decision about taking part in a biorepository. Methods: We recruited 52 research participants, 12 researchers, and 20 institutional review board representatives from Durham and Kannapolis, NC. These subjects were asked to read a model biorepository consent form and highlight sentences they deemed most important. Results: On average, institutional review board representatives identified 72.3% of the sentences as important; researchers selected 53.0%, and participants 40.4% (P = 0.0004). Participants most often selected sentences about the kinds of individual research results that might be offered, privacy risks, and large-scale data sharing. Researchers highlighted sentences about the biorepository's purpose, privacy protections, costs, and participant access to individual results. Institutional review board representatives highlighted sentences about collection of basic personal information, medical record access, and duration of storage. Conclusion: The differing mandates of these three groups can translate into widely divergent opinions about what information is important and appropriate to include a consent form. These differences could frustrate efforts to move simplified forms-for biobanking as well as for other kinds of research-into actual use, despite continued calls for such forms. Genet Med 2010:12(9):567-572.
引用
收藏
页码:567 / 572
页数:6
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
Albala Ilene, 2010, IRB, V32, P7
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2007, BEST PRACT BIOSP RES
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1998, RES INV PERS MENT DI
[4]  
[Anonymous], ETH POL ISS INT RES
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1999, RES INV HUM BIOL MAT
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2001, ETH POL ISS RES INV
[7]  
[Anonymous], 1978, The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research
[8]  
*ASS AM MED COLL, 2007, AAMC REP INF CONS DO
[9]  
Beardsley E, 2007, J CLIN ONCOL, V25, pE13, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3341
[10]   Informed consent for biorepositories: Assessing prospective participants' understanding and opinions [J].
Beskow, Laura M. ;
Dean, Elizabeth .
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2008, 17 (06) :1440-1451