The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research
Abstract
Aims: The procurement and usage of tissue samples has begun receiving increasing legal and ethical attention. The authors' aim was to develop an empirically based understanding of public attitudes to the use of tissue for research. Method: A questionnaire was distributed to a randomized sample (n=1,000) of the population in the age group 18 - 85 in Västerbotten County, Sweden. Results: The response rate was approximately 60%. There was a general acceptance of genetic research based on biobank material (71%) but, though it is often a prerequisite for tissue-based research, a majority (62%) would not allow researchers to examine their healthcare records without specific consent. A majority (66.8%) accepted surrogate decisions by research ethical committees; 48% of the respondents estimated that they would feel respected if they were notified each time a sample was used. When compared and ranked with other issues, informed consent was a principal concern to a minority (4%) only. Should research efforts generate information on future health risks, a majority (55%) would want to be told only if treatment was available. Conclusion: Though genetic research in bioethical debate is often viewed as a potential threat to the integrity of the donor, the confidentiality of medical records still seems to concern donors more. Research ethical committees have support in the majority of the population for some surrogate decisions. The current emphasis on the question of informed consent in policy making for biobank-based research does not seem to be reflected unambiguously in the concerns of the general public.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research?
Hansson, M. G., Dillner, J., Bartram, C. R., Carlson, J. A., & Helgesson, G. (2006) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(06)70618-0 · Cited by 382
Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions
Grady, C., Eckstein, L., Berkman, B., Brock, D., Cook-Deegan, R., Fullerton, S. M., Greely, H., Hansson, M. G., Hull, S., Kim, S., et al. (2015) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1062162 · Cited by 332
Public Expectations for Return of Results from Large-Cohort Genetic Research
Murphy, J., Scott, J., Kaufman, D., Geller, G., LeRoy, L., & Hudson, K. (2008) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265160802513093 · Cited by 278
Shalowitz, D. I., & Miller, F. G. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050091 · Cited by 260
Biobanks and Blanket Consent: The Proper Place of the Public Good and Public Perception Rationales
Caulfield, T. (2007) · King's Law Journal · doi:10.1080/09615768.2007.11427674 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoeyer, K., Olofsson, B.-O., Mjörndal, T., & Lynöe, N.
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-05
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 224-229
- ISSN
- 1403-4948 (ISSN-L)
- 1651-1905
- OpenAlex
- W1970343076
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14034940310019506
- The paper
- Hoeyer, K., Olofsson, B.-O., Mjörndal, T., & Lynöe, N. (2004). Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/14034940310019506
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.