4.6 Article

Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 331-339

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818bb3ab

关键词

public opinion; biobank; genetic research; research results; public engagement

资金

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute [1 U01 HG004206-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Cohort studies investigating genes, environment, and lifestyle require large study populations. To recruit and retain participants, it is important to understand the relative significance of influences on people's motivation to participate. To this end, 4659 Americans were surveyed about support for and willingness to participate in a proposed large cohort study. Methods: An online survey of US adults was conducted between December 2007 and January 2008. To measure the influence of study burden, compensation and receipt of individual research results on willingness to participate, respondents were randomized to one of eight different study scenarios. Results: Most respondents (84%) supported the study, and 60% would participate. Returning research results (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3-1.8) and increasing compensation from $50 to $200 (odds ratio = 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.2-1.7) were associated with increased willingness to participate. Decreasing study burden was less important (odds ratio = 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.0-1.4). Three in four respondents would be less likely to participate without the return of research results. Support and willingness varied little among demographic groups; variation in influences of the three factors on willingness was observed. Conclusion: Widespread support exists in the general public for a large national cohort study. Providing individual research results is a strong motivation to participate; compensating participants $200 may increase participation a similar amount. Incentives, recruitment, and return of results could be tailored to demographics groups' interests. Genet Med 2008:10(11): 831-839.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据