Journal
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
Volume 149A, Issue 2, Pages 188-198Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.32635
Keywords
biobank; genebank; DNA bank; genetic database; genetic research; research results; recontact; ethics; informed consent; confidentiality; disclosure; therapeutic misconception
Categories
Funding
- DOE [DE-FG02-02ER63437]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Biobanks have been developed as a tool to better understand the genetic basis of disease by linking DNA samples to corresponding medical information. The broad scope of such projects presents a challenge to informed consent and participant understanding. To address this, 200 telephone interviews were conducted with participants in the NUgene Project, Northwestern University's biobank. Interviews included a modified version of the quality of informed consent measure (QuIC) and semi-structured questions which were analyzed thematically for 109 of the interviews. The QuIC, originally applied to cancer clinical trials, objectively assessed some of the components of informed consent for a biobank, and interview questions provided rich data to assist in interpreting participant understanding. The best understood domains included: the nature of the study, benefit to future patients, and the voluntary nature of participation. Lower knowledge scores included: potential risks and discomforts, experimental nature of the research, procedures in the event of study-related injury, and confidentiality issues. Qualitatively, confidentiality protections of the study were described as good by most (> 50%). Although some cited concerns with employer (12%) or insurance discrimination (25%), most considered the risks to privacy low (25%) or none (similar to 60%). Only 10% of participants explicitly stated they had no expectation for personal benefit, and when asked whether they expected to be contacted with study results, respondents were split between having no expectation (39%), being hopeful for results (37%) and expecting to be contacted with results (12%). These findings are informative to those establishing and implementing biobanks, and to the IRBs reviewing such studies. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available