Informed consent for biobanking: consensus-based guidelines for adequate comprehension

Purpose:Federal regulations and best practice guidelines identify categories of information that should be communicated to prospective biobank participants during the informed consent process. However, uncertainty remains about which of this information participants must understand to provide valid consent.Methods:We conducted a Delphi process to define “adequate comprehension” in the context of biobanking consent. The process involved an iterative series of three online surveys of a diverse panel of 51 experts, including genome scientists, biobank managers, ethics and policy experts, and community and participant representatives. We sought consensus (>70% agreement) concerning what specific details participants should know about 16 biobank consent topics.Results:Consensus was achieved for 15 of the 16 consent topics. The exception was the comprehension needed regarding the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.Conclusion:Our Delphi process was successful in identifying a concise set of key points that prospective participants must grasp to provide valid consent for biobanking. Specifying the level of knowledge sufficient for individuals to make an informed choice provides a basis for improving consent forms and processes, as well as an absolute metric for assessing the effectiveness of other interventions to improve comprehension.Genet Med 17 3, 226–233.

[1]  Alanna Kulchak Rahm,et al.  Biobanking for research: a survey of patient population attitudes and understanding , 2013, Journal of Community Genetics.

[2]  K. Weinfurt,et al.  Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: Stakeholder perspectives , 2010, Genetics in Medicine.

[3]  D. Wendler.  Can we ensure that all research subjects give valid consent? , 2004, Archives of internal medicine.

[4]  Monya Baker,et al.  Biorepositories: Building better biobanks , 2012, Nature.

[5]  Kari Sand,et al.  The Understanding of Informed Consent Information—Definitions and Measurements in Empirical Studies , 2010 .

[6]  L. Damschroder,et al.  Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. , 2010, Social science & medicine.

[7]  David Wendler,et al.  What Should Research Participants Understand to Understand They are Participants in Research? , 2008, Bioethics.

[8]  S Holm,et al.  Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edn. , 2002 .

[9]  F. Collins,et al.  Keeping pace with the times--the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  F. Hasson,et al.  Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. , 2000, Journal of advanced nursing.

[11]  R. D. de Vries,et al.  Assessing the Public's Views in Research Ethics Controversies: Deliberative Democracy and Bioethics as Natural Allies , 2009, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[12]  J. Couzin-Frankel.  Ethics. DNA returned to tribe, raising questions about consent. , 2010, Science.

[13]  James Flory,et al.  Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. , 2004, JAMA.

[14]  N. Black,et al.  Consensus Development Methods: A Review of Best Practice in Creating Clinical Guidelines , 1999, Journal of health services research & policy.

[15]  Laura Lyman Rodriguez,et al.  Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants , 2003 .

[16]  G. Henderson,et al.  Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey , 2013, Genome Medicine.

[17]  D. Check,et al.  Research Participants’ Understanding of and Reactions to Certificates of Confidentiality , 2014, AJOB primary research.

[18]  Michelle M Mello,et al.  The Havasupai Indian tribe case--lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  E. Callaway.  HeLa publication brews bioethical storm , 2013, Nature.

[20]  R. Brook,et al.  Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. , 1984, American journal of public health.

[21]  Catherine A. McCarty,et al.  Informed Consent and Subject Motivation to Participate in a Large, Population-Based Genomics Study: The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[22]  J. Sheikh,et al.  Effective use of consent forms and interactive questions in the consent process. , 2008, IRB.

[23]  K. Weinfurt,et al.  Developing a Simplified Consent Form for Biobanking , 2010, PloS one.

[24]  Rosalind Raine,et al.  A comparison of formal consensus methods used for developing clinical guidelines , 2006, Journal of health services research & policy.

[25]  Jim Vaught,et al.  The evolution of biobanking best practices. , 2012, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[26]  Wendy A. Wolf,et al.  Assessing the understanding of biobank participants , 2009, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[27]  S. Niemeyer,et al.  Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. , 2009, Social science & medicine.

[28]  P. Appelbaum.  Understanding “Understanding”: An Important Step Toward Improving Informed Consent to Research , 2010 .

[29]  Glenn Regehr,et al.  Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[30]  F. Hasson,et al.  The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research , 2011 .

[31]  A. McGuire,et al.  Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. , 2010, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[32]  Marianne K Henderson,et al.  Biospecimens and Biorepositories: From Afterthought to Science , 2012, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[33]  J. Brady,et al.  The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. , 2014, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.

[34]  S. Athar.  Principles of Biomedical Ethics , 2011, The Journal of IMA.

[35]  Ezekiel J Emanuel,et al.  Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[36]  S. Levitus,et al.  US Government Printing Office , 1998 .