A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples

Ethical Aspects of Genotype Disclosure: Perceptions of Participants in a Nutrigenetic Study in Finland

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to gain insight into the understanding of genetics and perceptions on the ethical issues related to genotype disclosure of the participants in a nutrigenetic study.

METHODS

A close-ended questionnaire was developed based on literature and discussions among the research group members. The questionnaire contained a -total of 33 questions, which were divided into 4 categories - demographics, knowledge assessment, concerns related to participation, and opinions on disclosure of information. Majority of the participants (250 out of 281) of a nutrigenetic study, in which effect of disclosing APOE allele status on lifestyle changes was studied, completed the questionnaire online following the informed consent process. The responses from the knowledge assessment and the concern categories were transformed into knowledge and concern scales, respectively, and analysed by descriptive statistical methods. The statistical associations between the categorical variables were determined using χ2 test of independence. The relationship between the continuous variables was assessed using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and internal consistency of questions by Cronbach's alpha.

RESULTS

No correlation was observed between the level of education and knowledge scores. About 10% of the participants thought that the genetic predisposition would be stressful to them and their family members.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful distribution of information before a nutrigenetic study supports understanding and reduces concerns of genetic susceptibility. In Finland, strong basic education is likely to have strengthened the trust in research process.

Relationships of health information orientation and cancer history on preferences for consent and control over biospecimens in a biobank: A race-stratified analysis

In this study, we investigated how patients' self-reported health information efficacy, relationship with health providers, and cancer history are associated with their preferences for informed consent and need for control over biobank biospecimens. We recruited 358 women aged 40 and older (56% African American; 44% European American) and analyzed the data using multivariable regression models. Results show that African American participants' health information efficacy was significantly and negatively associated with their need for control over biospecimens and preference for a study-specific model. European American participants' dependency on doctors was a significant and negative predictor of their preference for a study-specific model. Several significant interaction effects, which varied across races, were found with regard to health information efficacy, personal cancer history, need for control, and preference for a study-specific model. The study findings suggest it is important to consider health information efficacy, relationship with providers, and need for control when developing large diverse biobanks.

Practice evaluation of biobank ethics and governance: current needs and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

Biobank research faces many ethical challenges. Ethics research aims to develop standards for governance to meet these challenges by elaborating overarching normative principles of medical ethics in the context of biobanking. Most ethical standards are widely agreed on among biobank stakeholders and entail specific governance solutions, for example, adoption of consent procedures. In order to fully meet its goal, every governance solution needs to be implemented, evaluated and, if necessary, adapted and improved in practice. This study reviews the scientific literature on biobank ethics and governance in order to identify studies that specifically focus on practice evaluation of biobank governance.

METHODS

A PubMed search was carried out. Retrieved literature was categorised and thematically clustered. All studies that focus on practice evaluation were reviewed and their objectives, results, and recommendations for practice summarised.

RESULTS

The findings show that the majority of studies on biobank ethics and governance are theoretical; only 25 out of 922 studies empirically evaluate biobank governance in practice. The majority of these (14; 59%) focused on informed consent. Six studies (24%) addressed practice evaluation of sample and data access; the rest focused on public involvement, ethics reporting and incidental findings. Other relevant governance areas such as ethics review, priority setting and sample ownership were not addressed.

CONCLUSION

In order to fulfil the ethical goals, more empirical research is needed that provides information on how governance mechanisms perform in practice and what improvements are needed.

"As Long as You Ask": A Qualitative Study of Biobanking Consent-Oncology Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Attitudes, Motivations, and Experiences-the B-PPAE Study

INTRODUCTION

Consent to biobanking remains controversial, with little empirical data to guide policy and practice. This study aimed to explore the attitudes, motivations, and concerns of both oncology patients and health care professionals (HCPs) regarding biobanking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with oncology patients and HCPs purposively selected from five Australian hospitals. Patients were invited to give biobanking consent as part of a clinical trial and/or for future research were eligible. HCPs were eligible if involved in consenting patients to biobanking or to donate specimens to clinical trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients participated, with head and neck (36%) and prostate (18%) the most common cancer diagnoses; all had consented to biobanking. Twenty-two HCPs participated, from across eight cancer streams and five disciplines. Themes identified were (a) biobanking is a "no brainer"; (b) altruism or scientific enquiry; (c) trust in clinicians, science, and institutions; (d) no consent-just do it; (e) respecting patient choice ("opt-out"); (f) respectful timing of the request; (g) need for emotional/family support; (h) context of the biobanking request matters; and (i) factors for biobanking success.

DISCUSSION

These findings reinforced previous findings regarding high public trust in, and support for, biobanking. An initial opt-in consent approach with the option of later opt-out was favored by patients to respect and recognize donor generosity, whereas HCPs preferred an upfront opt-out model. Factors impacting biobanking success included the context of the request for use in a trial or specific research question, pre-existing patient and HCP rapport, a local institution champion, and infrastructure.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patients and health care professionals (HCPs) who experienced cancer biobanking consent were overwhelmingly supportive of biobanking. The motivations and approaches to seeking consent were largely mirrored between the groups. The findings of this study support the opt-in model of biobanking favored by patients; however, HCPs preferred an opt-out model. Both groups recognize the importance of making the request for biobanking at an appropriate time, preferably with emotional or family support, and respecting the timing of the request and privacy of the patient. Biobanking success can be promoted by hospital departments with a research focus by identifying an institutional biobanking champion and ensuring local infrastructure is available.

Patients' experiences and preferences for opt-in models and health professional involvement in biobanking consent: A cross-sectional survey of Australian cancer outpatients

BACKGROUND

Many biobanks rely upon patients' willingness to donate biospecimens and healthcare professionals to initiate opt-in consent processes. This study explored if: (1) patients accept opt-in or opt-out consent models with varying levels of professional involvement; (2) professionals discuss participation with specific patient groups; and (3) this discussion is associated with patient knowledge of biobanking processes.

METHODS

Outpatients completed surveys at a tertiary cancer center in New South Wales, Australia. Eligible participants were English-speaking adults who recently had cancer-related surgery. Participants completed 27 questions exploring acceptable consent models, biobanking experiences, knowledge, and willingness. Logistic regression and chi-square tests examined differences in the characteristics and knowledge of participants who were offered the opportunity to participate versus those who were not.

RESULTS

A total of 113 outpatients participated (97% response). Most participants (92%) found opt-out, patient-initiated consent acceptable; however, high acceptability was reported for all models except for opt-in, patient-initiated consent (58%). University or technical qualifications (P  =  0.001) was associated with increased odds (OR = 4.5) of being offered biobanking. The majority did not know what occurred to samples after surgery (59.3%) or pathology review (81.4%) and ability to answer these questions was associated with discussion of participation (P < 0.001). Of the few outpatients who discussed biobanking with their doctor (29%), all consented.

CONCLUSION

Professional-initiated, opt-in consent resulted in a few educated patients being approached; greater professional initiation of consent would be fruitful as most patients were willing to participate if asked. However, other consent approaches minimizing professional involvement were as acceptable to participants warranting further consideration.

Patients' Attitudes Towards the Return of Incidental Findings After Research with Residual Tissue: A Mixed Methods Study

AIMS

To investigate the attitudes of patients toward the return of individual research results from scientific research with residual tissue.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We recruited 1319 patients from 6 Dutch hospitals. In total, 673 patients (51% response rate) completed the questionnaire and 146 were interviewed. Based on the questionnaire data, the majority of respondents (92%) wanted to be informed of incidental findings about both a curable (92%) and an incurable (76%) disease. Respondents' wishes to be informed about incidental findings did not vary significantly as a function of patient demographics or type of disease. The interview data show that respondents wished to be informed about incidental findings because they considered it to be normal practice; they expected the information to be of benefit for their health. Information should be provided by their physician. Yet, most respondents (84%) would consent to research even if they would not be informed about incidental findings, primarily because they recognized that there might be practical problems in providing such information, and because they valued scientific research highly.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that, while the majority of patients want to be informed about incidental findings, they also recognize that this may be difficult.

Enlisting the willing: A study of healthcare professional-initiated and opt-in biobanking consent reveals improvement opportunities throughout the registration process

Biobanking consent processes should accord with patients' preferences and be offered in a consistent and systematic manner. However, these aims can be difficult to achieve under healthcare professionals' (HCPs) time-constrained workflows, resulting in low participation rates. This current perspective provides a brief overview of HCP involvement in consent and reports new data on participant attrition at each step of the biobanking consent process as experienced by 113 patients at an Australian tertiary cancer centre. To determine attrition in this HCP-driven consent process, we reviewed medical records for the following events: inclusion of biobanking consent forms; visible patient and HCP signatures; consent status selected (decline or accept) and specimen registration with local biobank. Accessible medical records revealed the following data: 75 of 85 records included viewable forms; 22 of 85 records included patient and 19 of 85 included HCP signatures; 15 of 85 records included signed and completed forms and 3 of 85 had samples banked with annotated clinical data. We compared these data with self-reported experiences of being approached to participate by HCPs. Of the 15 participants (17.6%) who successfully completed consent, only five could recall being asked and providing consent. The low enrolment rate is a considerable lost opportunity because most patients (59%) who were not asked to participate indicated they would have consented if asked. Furthermore, in comparing self-reported experiences with medical records, we believe cancer patients' preferences for participation are mismatched with actual biobanking enrolment, which has considerable attrition at each step in the consent process.

Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens

Human biospecimens have played a crucial role in scientific and medical advances. Although the ethical and policy issues associated with biospecimen research have long been the subject of scholarly debate, the story of Henrietta Lacks, her family, and the creation of HeLa cells captured the attention of a much broader audience. The story has been a catalyst for policy change, including major regulatory changes proposed in the United States surrounding informed consent. These proposals are premised in part on public opinion data, necessitating a closer look at what such data tell us. The development of biospecimen policy should be informed by many considerations-one of which is public input, robustly gathered, on acceptable approaches that optimize shared interests, including access for all to the benefits of research. There is a need for consent approaches that are guided by realistic aspirations and a balanced view of autonomy within an expanded ethical framework.

A Randomised Controlled Trial of Consent Procedures for the Use of Residual Tissues for Medical Research: Preferences of and Implications for Patients, Research and Clinical Practice

Background

Despite much debate, there is little evidence on consequences of consent procedures for residual tissue use. Here, we investigated these consequences for the availability of residual tissue for medical research, clinical practice, and patient informedness.

Methods

We conducted a randomised clinical trial with three arms in six hospitals. Participants, patients from whom tissue had been removed for diagnosis or treatment, were randomised to one of three arms: informed consent, an opt-out procedure with active information provision (opt-out plus), and an opt-out procedure without active information provision. Participants received a questionnaire six weeks post-intervention; a subsample of respondents was interviewed. Health care providers completed a pre- and post-intervention questionnaire. We assessed percentage of residual tissue samples available for medical research, and patient and health care provider satisfaction and preference. Health care providers and outcome assessors could not be blinded.

Results

We randomised 1,319 patients, 440 in the informed consent, 434 in the opt-out plus, and 445 in the opt-out arm; respectively 60.7%, 100%, and 99.8% of patients’ tissue samples could be used for medical research. Of the questionnaire respondents (N = 224, 207, and 214 in the informed consent, opt-out plus, and opt-out arms), 71%, 69%, and 31%, respectively, indicated being (very) well informed. By questionnaire, the majority (53%) indicated a preference for informed consent, whereas by interview, most indicated a preference for opt-out plus (37%). Health care providers (N = 35) were more likely to be (very) satisfied with opt-out plus than with informed consent (p = 0.002) or opt-out (p = 0.039); the majority (66%) preferred opt-out plus.

Conclusion

We conclude that opt-out with information (opt-out plus) is the best choice to balance the consequences for medical research, patients, and clinical practice, and is therefore the most optimal consent procedure for residual tissue use in Dutch hospitals.

Trial Registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR2982

Consenting postpartum women for use of routinely collected biospecimens and/or future biospecimen collection

The National Children's Study (NCS) Harris County, Texas Study Center participated in the NCS Provider Based Sampling (PBS) substudy of the NCS Vanguard Phase pilot. As part of the hospital-based birth cohort component of the PBS substudy, we conducted a secondary data analysis to evaluate the proportion of postpartum women who consented to future biospecimen collection alone and to both future collection and use of residual birth biospecimens. In phase 1, 32 postpartum women at one hospital were asked to consent only to maternal future biospecimen collection. In phase 2, 40 other postpartum women from the same hospital were asked for an additional consent to use residual clinical biospecimens from the birth event that otherwise would be discarded, including cord blood and maternal blood and urine. Among 103 eligible women, a total of 72 participated. They were 28.3 ± 5.9 years old on average; 58 % were Hispanic; 63 % consented in English, and 37 % in Spanish; 39 % had some college education; 42 % were married; 60 % had an annual family income <$30,000; and 51 % were employed. In phase 1, 59 % consented to future biospecimen collection, and in phase 2, 95 % consented to both future collection and use of at least one residual birth biospecimen, with a difference between phases of 36 % [95 % CI 17-54 %]. Demographic characteristics did not differ among those who did and did not consent. Postpartum women were significantly more likely to grant consent for use of future and residual hospital-obtained biospecimens than future biospecimen collection alone.

Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention

BACKGROUND

In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent.

METHODS

Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy.

RESULTS

We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB.

Parental Views on Expanded Newborn Screening Using Whole-Genome Sequencing

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The potential application of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to state-mandated standard newborn screening (NBS) challenges the traditional public health approach to NBS and raises ethical, policy, and clinical practice issues. This article examines the perspectives and values of diverse healthy pregnant women and parents of children diagnosed with a primary immunodeficiency disorder about traditional NBS and expanded NBS with the use of WGS.

METHODS

We conducted 4 focus groups (3 in English and 1 in Spanish) with socioeconomically and ethnically diverse pregnant women (n = 26), and a comparison group with parents of children diagnosed with a primary immunodeficiency disorder (n = 5).

RESULTS

Pediatric policy-relevant themes that emerged from our analysis of the focus group data are presented within 4 categories: (1) perspectives on traditional NBS, (2) informed consent, (3) return of results, and (4) storage and retrieval of results. Analyses indicate that study participants desired greater inclusion in the NBS process. Despite an optimistic orientation to the potential benefits and limited harms likely to result from genomic applications of NBS, parents voiced concerns about privacy and control over test results. Limited trust in the medical system and the state-run NBS program informed these concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Expanded NBS with WGS for pediatricians may require management of more genetic conditions, including mutations that convey risk to both the child and parents for adult-onset disorders, and an informed-consent process to manage the genomic data and storage of blood spots. Attention to how these technologies are understood in diverse populations is needed for effective implementation.

Factors that may influence the willingness of cancer patients to consent for biobanking

BACKGROUND

Broad or general consent given by cancer patients for their tissue, blood, and clinical information to be stored in institutional biorepositories is fundamental to enable future ethical translational cancer research. The decision to consent for biobanking will contribute to the development of advanced diagnostic and prognostic tests, as well as new therapies to improve patient outcomes. While the rate of patient participation in biobanking programs is generally reported as high worldwide, few studies have investigated factors that may influence this decision. Biobanking at our medical research institute, an associated public (government-run) university hospital, and private hospital has been established for over 20 years, with collection of certain tumor types embedded in the research culture of these institutions. In this study, we investigated factors that may influence a cancer patient's decision to give broad consent for biobanking of their specimens.

METHODS

Data on patient consent were collected over a 6-month period from both government and private hospitals associated with our medical research institute. Factors considered included gender, patient age at surgery, type of malignancy (breast, duodenal, cervical, endometrial, gastric, liver, esophageal, ovarian, pancreatic, pelvic, uterine, or vulval), type of institution where surgery was performed, and timing of consent.

RESULTS

Of 171 cancer patients, 159 (93%) gave broad consent for biobanking of their tissue and blood specimens for future cancer research projects receiving ethical and scientific approval. None of the factors analyzed was shown to influence a patient's decision to contribute biological specimens and clinical data to a biorepository for future medical research.

CONCLUSION

Biobanking for future ethically and scientifically approved research projects in an established institution is an initiative that receives strong support from patients undergoing cancer surgery, independent of factors including gender, age, type of tumor, type of institution where surgery was performed, or timing of consent.

Informed consent for biobanking research: cancer patient recruitment from rural communities in Maine

Biobanking research seeks to improve the diversity, availability, and quality of human specimens critical for translational research, including biospecimen collections from disadvantaged minorities. American rural whites are seldom represented in such initiatives as geographic isolation makes obtaining informed consent challenging. We report a case series of 83 newly diagnosed cancer patients, attending a rural community medical center, who consented to participate in cancer research. To enable pooling with population studies, we created a BioGeoBank using 2007 NCI and ISBER Best Practices, after a protocol approval by Eastern Maine Medical Center (EMMC) IRB and OHP HRPO. Informed consent forms were at Flesch-Kincaid 8th Grade reading level, supplemented by NCI educational brochures. Of 108 patients identified, 85 were eligible. Of these, 83 patients (49 lung cancer, 21 breast cancer, and 13 other cancers) consented to donate data, blood, and tissue specimens for future research, and maintained eligibility. Two years later, we executed a legacy protocol to transfer specimens to NCI's biorepository. Of the 69 surviving patients, 9 patients could not be contacted. All those contacted (60) agreed to provide additional data on environmental risks, and consented to specimen transfer. Self-organizing map analyses showed no evidence that age, education, income, familial susceptibility, or lifestyle factors were associated with consent to donate data or biospecimens. Cancer cases reported 1-3 co-morbid chronic diseases (mostly cardiovascular), near lifetime smoking and/or alcohol consumption; familial cancer risks, and many had a prior cancer history. Anecdotally, willingness to consent was based on altruistic hopes that research would generate knowledge to reduce cancer incidence. Our study shows that cancer patients from disadvantaged white rural communities with health disparities associated with geographic isolation are motivated to consent to participate and support biobank research.

Proposed regulations for research with biospecimens: responses from stakeholders at CTSA consortium institutions

Secondary research with biospecimens acquired through clinical care and through research is often conducted without the informed consent of individuals from whom the specimens were acquired. While such uses are consistent with the current federal regulations, surveys of the general public suggest that many individuals would prefer more information and choice regarding research use of biospecimens. The federal government issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2011 that proposed a number of potential changes in the regulations governing human subjects. These proposed regulations are particularly pertinent to institutions committed to research involving human subjects-including institutions in the NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium. In this study, we reviewed public responses by CTSA-funded institutions and CTSA-affiliated organizations and groups regarding the proposed changes in the ANPRM with respect to research with biospecimens. Our results indicate that the majority of responses to the ANPRM from CTSA institutions were not supportive of the proposed changes. While many responses acknowledge a need to change current research practices regarding biospecimens, the proposed changes in the ANPRM received only limited support from this subgroup of academic research institutions.

Public attitudes regarding the use of electronic health information and residual clinical tissues for research

Use of electronic medical records (EMR) and residual clinical biospecimens have become important for the conduct of biomedical research. Currently, human subjects' protection regulations permit much of this research to be conducted without individual informed consent, posing a risk to biomedical research from public objection. We sought to understand public attitudes regarding access to EMRs and residual clinical biospecimens. This article reports the results of 12 focus groups with 131 participants conducted in Utah, Washington, Arizona, and Minnesota. Results indicate strong support for biomedical and genetic research in general and clear support for improved patient education regarding research access to individual data and biospecimens. Our participants were supportive of an opt-out approach to patient decision-making regarding research access to clinical data and biospecimens for research in general.

Public views on the donation and use of human biological samples in biomedical research: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

A mixed methods study exploring the UK general public's willingness to donate human biosamples (HBSs) for biomedical research.

SETTING

Cross-sectional focus groups followed by an online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve focus groups (81 participants) selectively sampled to reflect a range of demographic groups; 1110 survey responders recruited through a stratified sampling method with quotas set on sex, age, geographical location, socioeconomic group and ethnicity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Identify participants' willingness to donate HBSs for biomedical research, (2) explore acceptability towards donating different types of HBSs in various settings and (3) explore preferences regarding use and access to HBSs.

RESULTS

87% of survey participants thought donation of HBSs was important and 75% wanted to be asked to donate in general. Responders who self-reported having some or good knowledge of the medical research process were significantly more likely to want to donate (p<0.001). Reasons why focus group participants saw donation as important included: it was a good way of reciprocating for the medical treatment received; it was an important way of developing drugs and treatments; residual tissue would otherwise go to waste and they or their family members might benefit. The most controversial types of HBSs to donate included: brain post mortem (29% would donate), eyes post mortem (35%), embryos (44%), spare eggs (48%) and sperm (58%). Regarding the use of samples, there were concerns over animal research (34%), research conducted outside the UK (35%), and research conducted by pharmaceutical companies (56%), although education and discussion were found to alleviate such concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high level of public support and willingness to donate HBSs for biomedical research. Underlying concerns exist regarding the use of certain types of HBSs and conditions under which they are used. Improved education and more controlled forms of consent for sensitive samples may mitigate such concerns.

An effective multisource informed consent procedure for research and clinical practice: an observational study of patient understanding and awareness of their roles as research stakeholders in a cancer biobank

BACKGROUND

Efforts to improve patients' understanding of their own medical treatments or research in which they are involved are progressing, especially with regard to informed consent procedures. We aimed to design a multisource informed consent procedure that is easily adaptable to both clinical and research applications, and to evaluate its effectiveness in terms of understanding and awareness, even in less educated patients.

METHODS

We designed a multisource informed consent procedure for patients' enrolment in a Cancer Institute Biobank (CRO-Biobank). From October 2009 to July 2011, a total of 550 cancer patients admitted to the Centro di Riferimento Oncologico IRCCS Aviano, who agreed to contribute to its biobank, were consecutively enrolled. Participants were asked to answer a self-administered questionnaire aim at exploring their understanding of biobanks and their needs for information on this topic, before and after study participation. Chi-square tests were performed on the questionnaire answers, according to gender or education.

RESULTS

Of the 430 patients who returned the questionnaire, only 36.5% knew what a biobank was before participating in the study. Patients with less formal education were less informed by some sources (the Internet, newspapers, magazines, and our Institute). The final assessment test, taken after the multisource informed consent procedure, showed more than 95% correct answers. The information received was judged to be very or fairly understandable in almost all cases. More than 95% of patients were aware of participating in a biobank project, and gave helping cancer research (67.5%), moral obligation, and supporting cancer care as main reasons for their involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multisource informed consent information system allowed a high rate of understanding and awareness of study participation, even among less-educated participants, and could be an effective and easy-to-apply model for others to consider to contribute to a well-informed decision making process in several fields, from clinical practice to research.Further studies are needed to explore the effects on the study comprehension by each source of information, and by other sources suggested by participants in the questionnaire.

Parent perspectives on consent for the linkage of data to evaluate vaccine safety: a randomised trial of opt-in and opt-out consent

BACKGROUND

We examined parents' consent preferences and understanding of an opt-in or opt-out invitation to participate in data linkage for post-marketing safety surveillance of childhood vaccines.

METHODS

A single-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trial: 1129 families of babies born at a South Australian hospital in 2009 were sent information at 6 weeks post-partum, explaining data linkage of childhood immunisation and hospital records for vaccine safety surveillance, with 4 weeks to opt in or opt out by reply form, telephone, or email. At 10 weeks post-partum, 1026 (91%) parents were followed up by telephone interview.

RESULTS

In both the opt-in (n = 564) and opt-out arms (n = 565), four-fifths of the parents recalled receiving the information (81% vs. 83%, P = 0.35), three-fifths reported reading it (63% vs. 67%, P = 0.11), but only two-fifths correctly identified the health records to be linked (43% vs. 39%, P = 0.21). Parents who actively consented (opted in) were more likely than those who passively consented (did not opt out) to recall the information (100% vs. 83%, P < 0.001), report reading it (94% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), and correctly identify the data sources (60% vs. 39%, P < 0.001). Most parents supported data linkage for vaccine safety surveillance (94%) and trusted its privacy protections (84%). Most parents wished to have minimal or no direct involvement, preferring either opt-out consent (40%) or no consent (30%). A quarter (24%) of parents indicated opt-in consent should be sought; of these, 8% requested consent prior to every use, 5% preferred to give broad consent just once and 11% preferred periodic renewal. Three-fifths of the parents gave higher priority to rapid vaccine safety surveillance (61%) rather than first seeking parental consent (21%), and one in seven was undecided (15%). Although 91% of parents reported that their babies were fully immunised (76%) or under-immunised (15%), and trusted vaccines as safe (90%), three-fifths (62%) were very or somewhat concerned about serious reactions.

LIMITATIONS

The context of data linkage is limited to vaccine safety surveillance. Only recall and understanding retained at 1 month post enrolment were measured.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrates that informed consent for a population-based surveillance programme cannot realistically be achieved using mail-based opt-in and opt-out approaches. While recall and understanding of the study's purpose were better among parents who actively consented (opted in) compared with parents who passively consented (did not opt out), participation was substantially lower (21% vs. 96% respectively). Most parents appeared to have a poor understanding of data linkage for vaccine safety surveillance; nonetheless, they supported data linkage. They preferred a system utilising opt-out consent or no consent to one using opt-in consent.

Take another little piece of my heart: regulating the research use of human biospecimens

This article reviews the history of the debate over use of biospecimens in research, the legal and ethical arguments that have been presented both in support of and in opposition to such use, court cases and judicial opinions involving disputes between specimen contributors, researchers, and institutions, and public attitudes regarding the use of biospecimens in research. The paper argues that proposed changes to the Common Rule are inadequate to resolve the legal and ethical concerns that have been raised with respect to the use of biospecimens. It argues that there is a need to distinguish between the dual roles - subject and donor - played by contributors of biospecimens.

Inclusion of residual tissue in biobanks: opt-in or opt-out?

Residual samples are an important source of tissue for biobanks. They refer to leftover tissue that is obtained in the course of clinical care. Residual samples can be included through an opt-in method--that is, a person explicitly expresses consent to include residual tissue--or an opt-out method--that is, the tissue is stored unless a person explicitly refuses. At the moment there is a renewed interest in the appropriate method for the inclusion of residual samples in biobanks. The expansion of biobanks and rapid developments in biomedical research underscore the need to evaluate the proper procedure. In this article we revisit the arguments in favor and against opt-in and opt-out methods for residual tissue research. We conclude firstly that an opt-out method is only justifiable when certain conditions are met: (1) awareness has to be raised, (2) sufficient information has to be provided, and (3) a genuine possibility to object has to be offered. An opt-out procedure that fulfills these conditions can be called a "thick" opt-out method. As a consequence, the dichotomy between opt-in and opt-out is less stark than usually suggested, as both methods require a certain amount of effort. Secondly, we conclude that because of the diversity of tissue and research, not every situation can be treated alike. There are at least four situations that require opt-in procedures: (1) research with higher risks or increased burdens, (2) the use of controversial or high-impact techniques, (3) research on sensitive tissue types, and (4) research involving vulnerable patients. We suggest that further interdisciplinary debate should answer the question when to opt-in or when to opt-out.

Patients' experiences on donation of their residual biological samples and the impact of these experiences on the type of consent given for the future research use of the tissue: a systematic review

AIM

This review aimed to critically appraise, synthesise and present the best available evidence related to the experiences of patients who have donated their residual biological samples and the impact of this experience on the type of consent given for future research use of these tissues.

METHOD

The three-step search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies published in English between 1990 and 2010 in electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, Mednar, PROQUEST). Using the standardised data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute, the Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument, 131 findings were extracted from the 18 papers included in this review. These findings generated 19 categories and four synthesised findings.

RESULTS

The synthesised findings generated were related to the different stages of the handling of leftover tissue. The first synthesised finding: patient consent to the use of leftover tissue is a complex interaction between many factors and not solely driven by perceptions of benefits to self or others, relates to the collection of the leftover tissue - the initial consent process. The second synthesised finding: healthcare institutions and regulatory authorities must provide clear and transparent safeguards and controls, and communicate these to the patient prior to the consenting process, outlines the issues affecting consent during the processing and storage of the tissues in biobanks or research institutions. The third synthesised finding: views on ownership and rights to the further use of the leftover tissue varies between individual patients and influences their willingness to consent to further use, demonstrates the concerns relating to the safeguards on the collection and storage of leftover tissue. The fourth synthesised finding: patients have opposing views on the use of their leftover tissue for commercial purposes, reflecting the differing community beliefs around using leftover tissue for research which may provide a commercial benefit to some, but not all, the community.

CONCLUSION

For leftover tissues to be used, patients must clearly understand: the type of consent they are providing (opt in or opt out); the parameters for the future research use of their leftover tissues; the safeguards put into place to protect the individual and the donated tissue from unethical use; and the commercial implications of their consent.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This review provides information on patient's experiences on the collection, storage, distribution and future use of leftover tissue. These preferences need to be understood when designing a prospective model of consent regimen which respects patient's confidentiality and wishes. The information in this review is especially important for policy-makers designing a prospective model of consent regimen for the use of existing and previously collected biological samples with no consent taken.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Further research is needed to ascertain what factors specifically influence patient's willingness to consent for the use of leftover tissue. Factors for further exploration include the effects of culture, religion and age. Additionally, further research is required to inform the development of specific consent regimes for the use of leftover tissue for commercial, stem cell and genetic research.

Consent for use of clinical leftover biosample: a survey among Chinese patients and the general public

Background

Storage of leftover biosamples generates rich biobanks for future studies, saving time and money and limiting physical impact to sample donors.

Objective

To investigate the attitudes of Chinese patients and the general public on providing consent for storage and use of leftover biosamples.

Design, Setting and Participants

Cross-sectional surveys were conducted among randomly selected patients admitted to a Shanghai city hospital (n = 648) and members of the general public (n = 492) from May 2010 to July 2010.

Main Outcome Measures

Face-to-face interviews collected respondents-report of their willingness to donate residual biosample, trust in medical institutions, motivation for donation, concerns of donated sample use, expectations for research results return, and so on.

Results

The response rate was 83.0%. Of the respondents, 89.1% stated that they completely understood or understood most of questions. Willingness to donate residual sample was stated by 64.7%, of which 16.7% desired the option to withdraw their donations anytime afterwards. Only 42.3% of respondents stated they “trust" or “strongly trust" medical institutions, the attitude of trusting or strongly trusting medical institutions were significantly associated with willingness to donate in the general public group.(p<0.05) The overall assent rate for future research without specific consents was also low (12.1%). Hepatitis B virus carriers were significantly less willing than non-carriers to donate biosamples (32.1% vs. 64.7%, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Low levels of public trust in medical institutions become serious obstacle for biosample donation and biobanking in China. Efforts to increase public understanding of human medical research and biosample usage and trust in the ethical purposes of biobanking are urgently needed. These efforts will be greatly advanced by the impending legislation on biobanking procedures and intent, and our results may help guide the structure of such law.

Contributing to research via biobanks: what it means to cancer patients

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Biobanks have become strategic resources for biomedical and genetic research. The aim of the present empirical qualitative study was to investigate how patients with cancer perceive and experience the process of donation to biobanks, focussing on the subjective meanings associated with their decisions when they are asked in a routine context to agree to their own biological specimens being used for research projects.

DESIGN

A qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews to explore in depth the reasons why patients with cancer agree to participating in biobanking. Participants  Nineteen patients (aged 28-82 years) being treated for colorectal cancer or leukaemia at a French cancer centre participated in this study.

RESULTS

Contributing to biobanks was experienced here as a rewarding and empowering individual experience because of the psychological issues involved, such as feelings of hope associated with research, because it makes the relationship with researchers and clinicians less asymmetrical, revalorization of otherwise 'wasted' tissue, and also as an act of solidarity and reciprocity, which makes patients part of a community.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Patients seem to regard contributing to biobanks as an act of benevolence, which they are motivated to perform because of societal welfare considerations as well as the hope of subjective benefits. Knowledge about the patients' perspective and of the psychological rewards associated with tumour donation should be taken into account by physicians and caregivers discussing this topic with their patients.

[Perception by cancer patients of biomedical research in the era of large-scale biobanking]

In French hospitals, patients are increasingly asked to participate in research, particularly in oncology where the development of research is stimulated at a national level (plan Cancer). This article express our thoughts based on the literature about the perception by cancer patients of research activities developed in the care centre where they are treated. We focus mainly on the consent for biobanking in a context in which cancer patients are routinely requested to donate tumour samples for research. This article presents the results of a survey among patients treated in a comprehensive cancer centre. The available literature shows that patients have an overall positive image of medical research and of the existence of research activities intertwined with medical care. Patients are globally expressing a wish for more proposals to participate in research in collaboration with scientific teams.

Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models

PURPOSE

Despite important recent work, US public attitudes toward specific biobank consent models are not well understood. Public opinion data can help shape efforts to develop ethically sound and publicly trusted mechanisms for informing and consenting prospective biobank donors. The purpose of this study was to explore public perspectives toward a range of consent models currently being used or considered for use among comprehensive US biobanks.

METHODS

The study used an exploratory mixed-methods design, using focus groups and telephone surveys. Eligible participants were English-speaking residents in the catchment area of a comprehensive biobank being developed at the University of Iowa.

RESULTS

Forty-eight participants in seven focus groups and 751 survey participants were recruited. Biobanks were unfamiliar to almost all study participants but were seen as valuable resources. Most focus group (63%) and survey (67%) participants preferred a prospective opt-in over an opt-out consent approach. Broad, research-unspecific consent was preferred over categorical and study-specific consent models for purposes of approving future research use.

CONCLUSION

Many individuals may want to make an active and informed choice at the point of being approached for biobank participation but are prepared to consent broadly to future research use and to forego additional choices as a result.

A randomised controlled trial to compare opt-in and opt-out parental consent for childhood vaccine safety surveillance using data linkage: study protocol

BACKGROUND

The Vaccine Assessment using Linked Data (VALiD) trial compared opt-in and opt-out parental consent for a population-based childhood vaccine safety surveillance program using data linkage. A subsequent telephone interview of all households enrolled in the trial elicited parental intent regarding the return or non-return of reply forms for opt-in and opt-out consent. This paper describes the rationale for the trial and provides an overview of the design and methods.

METHODS/DESIGN

Single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT) stratified by firstborn status. Mothers who gave birth at one tertiary South Australian hospital were randomised at six weeks post-partum to receive an opt-in or opt-out reply form, along with information explaining data linkage. The primary outcome at 10 weeks post-partum was parental participation in each arm, as indicated by the respective return or non-return of a reply form (or via telephone or email response). A subsequent telephone interview at 10 weeks post-partum elicited parental intent regarding the return or non-return of the reply form, and attitudes and knowledge about data linkage, vaccine safety, consent preferences and vaccination practices. Enrolment began in July 2009 and 1,129 households were recruited in a three-month period. Analysis has not yet been undertaken. The participation rate and selection bias for each method of consent will be compared when the data are analysed.

DISCUSSION

The VALiD RCT represents the first trial of opt-in versus opt-out consent for a data linkage study that assesses consent preferences and intent compared with actual opting in or opting out behaviour, and socioeconomic factors. The limitations to generalisability are discussed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000332022.

Consent for biobanking: assessing the understanding and views of cancer patients

Cancer patients were questioned about the consent process in a context in which they were routinely requested to donate tumor samples to research. After in-depth interviews of 19 patients, a 12-page questionnaire was designed and mailed to 745 patients who had been recently treated for colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or a hematological malignancy at a French Regional Cancer Center at which an opt-in biobanking system has existed since 2002. The response rate was 77.0% (N = 574). Among responding patients, 349 (60.8%) of the 574 were in favor of a formal and signed consent. Concordance was low (kappa = 0.23) between the number of patients who declared in the survey that they had given consent (213 of 574 [37.1%]) vs the number for whom registered consent had been recorded (267 of 574 [46.5%]). Only 2 (0.3%) of the 574 patients stated that they had signed a refusal, and only 88 (41.3%) of the 213 patients who remembered giving consent understood that their consent for biobanking also covered authorization to use their clinical data. We conclude that the opt-in consent procedure is positively perceived by most patients but should be improved for a better understanding and possibly an even better adherence to the consent process.