Cited by 87Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareMedical and Health Sciences Research

Informed Consent and Subject Motivation to Participate in a Large, Population-Based Genomics Study: The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project

McCarty, Catherine A., Nair, Anuradha, Austin, Diane M., Giampietro, Philip F.·2007·Public Health Genomics

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to measure subject perspective and reaction to participation in the Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP) and to identify factors predicting understanding of the study elements. Method: Self-administered questionnaires were mailed to 1,593 subjects (10% sample). The questionnaire had three sections: section A consisted of 21 factual questions; section B consisted of 14 questions to assess the level of understanding about the PMRP concepts, and section C asked about the purpose of the PMRP. Results: The mean age of the 924 survey respondents was 52 years (SD = 16.9), with a range of 18–95 years. The majority of participants were female (n = 561, 61%). The percent of total correct responses for section A was significantly higher for females compared with males (males: 58.4% and females: 60.4%, t test = –2.18, p = 0.03) and age was significantly inversely related to percent of correct responses (β coefficient = –0.122, p < 0.001). More than one third of the participants indicated that the USD 20 greatly influenced their decision to participate in the project. In a multiple logistic regression model, people living outside of Marshfield were significantly more likely to indicate that the USD 20 greatly influenced their decision to participate (odds ratio = 1.40, 95% confidence limit = 1.06, 1.86) and age was inversely related to the monetary influence on decision to participate (odds ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence limit = 0.97, 0.98). Conclusion: Future community consultation efforts should highlight areas of lower understanding. In addition, research coordinators may need to take more time informing males and older individuals about project details so that they are making truly informed decisions about study participation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000096274

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCarty, C. A., Nair, A., Austin, D. M., & Giampietro, P. F.
Affiliations
  • Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation (US)
  • Marshfield Clinic (US)
Venue
Public Health Genomics
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2006-12-13
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
2-9
ISSN
  • 1422-2795 (ISSN-L)
  • 1662-4246
  • 1662-8063
OpenAlex
W2067465901
Cited by
87
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Public Health Genomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Northwestern University
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
informed consent, research participation motivation, financial incentives, community consultation
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Male, Motivation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Genomics, Research Subjects, Genetic Research, Population Groups

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