Participant views on consent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era
Open accessAbstract
The Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) has created considerable discussions about research participant issues including re-consent and how and when to incorporate the patient experience into clinical trials. Within the changing landscape of genetic and genomic research, the preferences of participants are lacking yet are needed to inform policy. With the growing use of biobanks intended to support studies, including the national research cohort proposed under the PMI, understanding participant preferences, including re-consent, is a pressing concern. The Participant Issues Project (PIP) addresses this gap, and here we present data on participant attitudes regarding re-consent and broad consent in research studies. PIP study participants came from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and included cancer patients, relatives, and controls. Thirty telephone interviews were conducted and analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Results indicate that in some scenarios, re-consent is needed. Most participants agreed that re-consent was necessary when the study direction changed significantly or a child participant became an adult, but not if the genetic variant changed. Most participants' willingness to participate in research would not be affected if the researcher or institution profited or if a broad consent form were used. Participants emphasized re-consent to provide information and control of the use of their data, now relevant for tailored treatment, while also prioritizing research as important. In the era of precision medicine, it is essential that policy makers consider participant preferences with regard to use of their materials and that participants understand genetic and genomic research and its harms and benefits as well as what broad consent entails, including privacy and re-identification risks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Edwards et al. survey reveals that the majority of patients wish re-consent, if their data are used for a different, but related or unrelated health condition.
“The Edwards et al. survey reveals that the majority of patients wish re-consent, if their data are used for a different, but related or unrelated health condition.”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [60]
Despite these preferences, the majority of respondents believe that the benefit of broad consent outweighs the harm, highlighting the feasibility and relevance of research.
“Despite these preferences, the majority of respondents believe that the benefit of broad consent outweighs the harm, highlighting the feasibility and relevance of research [60].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [60]
A re-consent should also be granted when a child reaches the age of majority.
“A re-consent should also be granted when a child reaches the age of majority.”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [60]
Cites
Platt, J., Bollinger, J., Dvoskin, R., Kardia, S. L. R., & Kaufman, D. (2014) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2013.59 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Erdmann, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., & Bozzaro, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00682-8 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- Authors
- Edwards, K. L., Korngiebel, D. M., Pfeifer, L., Goodman, D., Renz, A., Wenzel, L., Bowen, D. J., & Condit, C. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
- Boston University (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Edwards, Karen L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Community Genetics
- Published
- 2016-01-22
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 133-143
- ISSN
- 1868-310X (ISSN-L)
- 1868-6001
- PMC
- PMC4796049
- OpenAlex
- W2321409706
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 2.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Community Genetics (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (1R01CA149051)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Keywords
- research consent, re-consent, broad consent, participant preferences, precision medicine, biobanks, genomic research ethics, data privacy, re-identification risk, patient experience
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review