Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research

Purpose:Some large population biobanks that house biospecimens and health information for research seek broad consent from participants, whereas others reconsent for specific new studies. Understanding research participants’ attitudes and preferences about broad and narrow consent may improve recruitment, retention, and public support.Methods:An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of 4,659 US adults to examine relationships between consent preferences and demographic factors, beliefs about privacy and the value of research, and the perceived trustworthiness of researchers.Results:Participants preferred broad consent (52%) over study-by-study consent models (48%). Higher preferences for study-by-study consent observed among black non-Hispanic respondents and respondents with lower income and education were explained by differences in the prevalence of one or more beliefs about the study. Respondents with fears about research and those who would feel respected if asked for permission for each research use preferred study-by-study consent. Preference for broad consent was related to the desire not to be bothered with multiple requests and the belief that the study could lead to improved treatments, cures, and lives saved.Conclusion:These data suggest that support for broad consent is contingent on sufficient information about data use. Work with research participants and community leaders to understand, respond to, and influence opinions about a given, ongoing study may improve uptake of broad consent.Genet Med 16 1, 11–18.

[1]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Microeconometrics Using Stata: Revised Edition , 2010 .

[2]  K. Hoeyer Donors Perceptions of Consent to and Feedback from Biobank Research: Time to Acknowledge Diversity? , 2009, Public Health Genomics.

[3]  M. Daly,et al.  Genetic Mapping in Human Disease , 2008, Science.

[4]  Richard G. Newell,et al.  Simplified marginal effects in discrete choice models , 2003 .

[5]  A. Giddens Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics , 1994 .

[6]  B. Knoppers,et al.  Children and incompetent adults in genetic research: consent and safeguards , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[7]  J. Botkin,et al.  Assessing public attitudes on the retention and use of residual newborn screening blood samples: a focus group study. , 2012, Social science & medicine.

[8]  Eric M Meslin,et al.  Research Ethics Recommendations for Whole-Genome Research: Consensus Statement , 2008, PLoS biology.

[9]  A. Giddens The consequences of modernity , 1990 .

[10]  Jan-Eric Litton,et al.  Biobanking for Europe , 2007, Briefings Bioinform..

[11]  Nicholas R. Anderson,et al.  Meeting the Governance Challenges of Next-Generation Biorepository Research , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[12]  F. Collins,et al.  Merging and emerging cohorts: Necessary but not sufficient , 2007, Nature.

[13]  G. Geller,et al.  Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. , 2009, American journal of public health.

[14]  Qiong Yang,et al.  The Third Generation Cohort of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study: design, recruitment, and initial examination. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[15]  Bjørn Hofmann,et al.  The ethics of research biobanking , 2009 .

[16]  Joan Scott,et al.  Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. , 2009, American journal of human genetics.

[17]  S. Kardia,et al.  ‘Born in Michigan? You're in the Biobank': Engaging Population Biobank Participants through Facebook Advertisements , 2013, Public Health Genomics.

[18]  Kathy Hudson,et al.  Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.