Patients' attitudes to informed consent for genomic research with donated samples

Informed Consent for Online Research-Is Anybody Reading?: Assessing Comprehension and Individual Differences in Readings of Digital Consent Forms

Informed consent is an important part of the research process; however, some participants either do not read or skim the consent form. When participants do not read or comprehend informed consent, then they may not understand the potential benefits, risks, or details of the study before participating. This study used previous research to develop experimentally manipulated online consent forms utilizing various presentations of the consent form and interactive elements. Participants (n = 576) were randomly exposed to one of six form variations. Results found that the highly interactive condition was significantly better for comprehension than any of the other conditions. The highly interactive condition also performed better for readability, though not significantly. Further research should explore the effects of interactive elements to combat habituation and to engage participants with the parts of the consent form unique to the study.

Ethical Issues in Research and Development of Epigenome-wide Technologies

To date, few scholarly discussions on ethical implications of epigenetics and epigenomics technologies have focused on the current phase of research and development, in which researchers are confronted with real and practical ethical dilemmas. In this article, a responsible research and innovation approach, using interviews and an expert meeting, is applied to a case of epigenomic test development for cervical cancer screening. This article provides an overview of ethical issues presently facing epigenomics researchers and test developers, and discusses 3 sets of issues in depth: (1) informed consent; (2) communication with donors and/or research participants, and (3) privacy and publication of data and research results. Although these issues are familiar to research ethics, some aspects are new and most require reinterpretation in the context of epigenomics technologies. With this article, we aim to start a discussion of the practical ethical issues rising in research and development of epigenomic technologies and to offer guidance for researchers working in the field of epigenetic and epigenomic technology.

Patient Preferences for Use of Archived Biospecimens from Oncology Trials When Adequacy of Informed Consent Is Unclear

BACKGROUND

Oncology research increasingly involves biospecimen collection and data sharing. Ethical challenges emerge when researchers seek to use archived biospecimens for purposes that were not well defined in the original informed consent document (ICD). We sought to inform ongoing policy debates by assessing patient views on these issues.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We administered a cross-sectional self-administered survey to patients with cancer at an academic medical center. Survey questions addressed attitudes toward cancer research, willingness to donate biospecimens, expectations regarding use of biospecimens, and preferences regarding specific ethical dilemmas.

RESULTS

Among 240 participants (response rate 69%), virtually all (94%) indicated willingness to donate tissue for research. Most participants (86%) expected that donated tissue would be used for any research deemed scientifically important, and virtually all (94%) expected that the privacy of their health information would be protected. Broad use of stored biospecimens and data sharing with other researchers increased willingness to donate tissue. For three scenarios in which specific consent for proposed biobank research was unclear within the ICD, a majority of patient's favored allowing the research to proceed: 76% to study a different cancer, 88% to study both inherited (germline) and tumor specific (somatic) mutations, and 70% to permit data sharing. A substantial minority believed that research using stored biospecimens should only proceed with specific consent.

CONCLUSION

When debates arise over appropriate use of archived biospecimens, the interests of the research participants in seeing productive use of their blood or tissue should be considered, in addition to addressing concerns about potential risks and lack of specific consent.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This survey evaluated views of patients with cancer regarding the permissible use of stored biospecimens from cancer trials when modern scientific methods are not well described in the original informed consent document. The vast majority of patients support translational research and expect that any biospecimens they donate will be used to advance knowledge. When researchers, policy makers, and those charged with research oversight debate use of stored biospecimens, it is important to recognize that research participants have an interest in productive use of their blood, tissue, or data, in addition to considerations of risks and the adequacy of documented consent.

Managing the Unimaginable: Biobank Participant Views on Reconsent for Whole Genome Sequencing of Stored Biospecimens

Background: DNA biobanks frequently obtain broad permissions from sample donors, who agree to allow their biospecimens to be used for a variety of future purposes. A limitation of this approach is that it may not be possible to discuss or anticipate all potential uses of biospecimens at the time patient consent is obtained. We surveyed biobank participants to clarify their views regarding the need to be informed about research involving whole genome sequencing (WGS). Methods: We invited 1200 participants in the Mayo Clinic Biobank to complete a survey inquiring about their support for WGS; their interest in being recontacted before WGS of their biospecimens; whether they would consent to WGS if asked; and the acceptability of proceeding with WGS if sample donors could not be reached. Results: Six hundred eighty-seven biobank participants returned completed surveys (57% response). More than 96% of biobank participants were supportive of WGS and would give permission for WGS of their sample, if asked. Nonetheless, 61% of biobank participants felt they should be recontacted before WGS was done. Participants were divided regarding the permissibility of conducting WGS if efforts to recontact sample donors were unsuccessful. Discussion: Our findings highlight a potential discrepancy between the broad permissions granted by biobank participants at the time they donated biospecimens and their views about the application of WGS to their samples. Biobank participants appear to value the ability to confirm their commitment to genetic research when the studies in question involve WGS, a technological capacity they may not have anticipated at the time they donated their biospecimens. Efforts to reevaluate biobank participants' views about the acceptability of new technologies may help to ensure alignment of participants' current beliefs and research applications that would have been difficult to anticipate at the time biospecimens were collected.

Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers

Commentators are concerned that broad consent may not provide biospecimen donors with sufficient information regarding possible future research uses of their tissue. We surveyed with interviews 302 cancer patients who had recently provided broad consent at four diverse academic medical centers. The majority of donors believed that the consent form provided them with sufficient information regarding future possible uses of their biospecimens. Donors expressed very positive views regarding tissue donation in general and endorsed the use of their biospecimens in future research across a wide range of contexts. Concerns regarding future uses were limited to for-profit research and research by investigators in other countries. These results support the use of broad consent to store and use biological samples in future research.

Cancer donor preferences for disposition of their biospecimens after biobank closure

BACKGROUND

Biobank funding is unstable and biobank administrators are concerned about loss of funding and subsequent biobank closure. Nevertheless, only a minority of biobanks have policies regarding the distribution or destruction of tissue if the biobank were to close. To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to report on the preferences of oncology biospecimen donors regarding the handling of their biospecimens in the event of biobank closure.

METHODS

A total of 98 biospecimen donors who were diagnosed with cancer at the Georgia Cancer Center for Excellence at Grady Memorial Hospital or the Winship Cancer Institute were interviewed concerning their preferences for the handling of their biospecimens in the event of biobank closure.

RESULTS

The majority of biospecimen donors who expressed a preference (62 of 83 donors; 75%) wanted their biological materials transferred to another biobank, specifically an academic bank or a national bank. The most unacceptable options for the handling of tissue were transfer to a for-profit/pharmaceutical biobank (39 of 98 donors; 40%) or a biobank based outside of the United States (31 of 98 donors; 32%). Nonwhite participants were more likely to view the transfer of their tissue to a for-profit/pharmaceutical tissue bank, international tissue bank, or a national tissue bank as unacceptable compared with white participants.

CONCLUSIONS

According to these biospecimen donors, the most acceptable options for the handling of biospecimens after biobank closure were transfer to an academic or national bank. The most objectionable options were transfer to a for-profit/pharmaceutical biobank or a biobank based outside of the United States. These findings can be used as the basis for educational interventions directed at the public and can inform the policies of biobanks that serve oncology research. Cancer 2017;123:4648-4652. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States

PURPOSE

In 2011, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed that de-identified human data and specimens be included in biobanks only if patients provide consent. The National Institutes of Health Genomic Data Sharing policy went into effect in 2015, requiring broad consent from almost all research participants.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of attitudes toward biobanking, broad consent, and data sharing. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Science, EthxWeb, and GenETHX. Study screening was conducted using DistillerSR.

RESULTS

The final 48 studies included surveys (n = 23), focus groups (n = 8), mixed methods (n = 14), interviews (n = 1), and consent form analyses (n = 2). Study quality was characterized as good (n = 19), fair (n = 27), and poor (n = 2). Although many participants objected, broad consent was often preferred over tiered or study-specific consent, particularly when broad consent was the only option, samples were de-identified, logistics of biobanks were communicated, and privacy was addressed. Willingness for data to be shared was high, but it was lower among individuals from under-represented minorities, individuals with privacy and confidentiality concerns, and when pharmaceutical companies had access to data.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research is needed to understand factors affecting willingness to give broad consent for biobank research and data sharing in order to address concerns to enhance acceptability.Genet Med 18 7, 663-671.

Research participants' perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis

BACKGROUND

Appropriate information and consent has been one of the most intensely discussed topics within the context of biobank research. In parallel to the normative debate, many socio-empirical studies have been conducted to gather experiences, preferences and views of patients, healthy research participants and further stakeholders. However, there is scarcity of literature which connects the normative debate about justifications for different consent models with findings gained in empirical research. In this paper we discuss findings of a limited review of socio-empirical research on patients' and healthy research participants' experiences and views regarding consent to biobank research in light of ethical principles for appropriate information and consent.

METHODS

Review question: Which empirical data are available on research participants' perceptions and views regarding information and elicitation of consent for biobank research? Search of articles published till March 1st 2014 in Pubmed. Review of abstracts and potentially relevant full text articles by two authors independently. As categories for content analysis we defined (i) understanding or recall of information, (ii) preferences regarding information or consent, and (iii) research participants' concerns.

RESULTS

The search in Pubmed yielded 337 abstracts of which 10 articles were included in this study. Approaches to information and consent varied considerably across the selected studies. The majority of research participants opted for some version of limited consent when being informed about such possibility. Among the factors influencing the type of preferred consent were information about sponsoring of biobank research by pharmaceutical industry and participants' trade-off between privacy and perceived utility. Studies investigating research participants' understanding and recall regarding the consent procedure indicated considerable lack of both aspects. Research participants' perceptions of benefits and harms differ across those studies.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge, perceptions and views of research participants who have undergone a consent procedure within the context of biobank research raise several questions on the issue of how to inform and elicit consent in an ethically acceptable way. In our empirical-ethical analysis we develop suggestions on how the practice of eliciting consent in the biobank context should be improved.

Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research

PURPOSE

This study examined acceptability of two biobank consent models and evaluated the impact of beliefs about privacy and genetic safeguards on acceptance.

METHODS

U.S. adults surveyed online in English and Spanish were randomly assigned to one of two scenarios examining acceptance of broad consent (n=1528), or narrow consent (n=1533).

RESULTS

Overall, willingness to provide broad (76%) and narrow (74%) consents were similar. African Americans were as likely as white non-Hispanics to accept narrow consent (72% vs. 77%, p=0.35) but significantly less likely to accept broad consent (69% vs. 81%, p=0.004). Education, insurance, and blood donation history were also related to acceptance. Adjusting for beliefs about privacy and policy protections (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, GINA), the effects of the variables were reduced. Respondents who drew comfort from GINA were more likely to support both consent (both p<0.001); those who believed it is impossible to maintain privacy were less likely to find both broad (p=0.04) and narrow models acceptable (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Choice of consent model matters when engaging diverse populations in biobank research. Beliefs underlying concerns about privacy and genetic protections should be considered when constructing biobank protocols.

Biobanking, consent, and control: a survey of Albertans on key research ethics issues

While the development of large scale biobanks continues, ethics and policy challenges persist. Debate surrounds key issues such as giving and withdrawing consent, incidental findings and return of results, and ownership and control of tissue samples. Studies of public perception have demonstrated a lack of consensus on these issues, particularly in different jurisdictions. We conducted a telephone survey of members of the public in Alberta, Canada. The survey addressed the aforementioned issues, but also explored public trust in the individuals and institutions involved in biobanking research. Results show that the Alberta public is fairly consistent in their responses and that those who preferred a broad consent model were also less likely to desire continuing control and a right to withdraw samples. The study raises questions about the role of public perceptions and opinions, particularly in the absence of consensus.

Consent for the use of human biological samples for biomedical research: a mixed methods study exploring the UK public's preferences

OBJECTIVE

A mixed-methods study exploring the UK general public's views towards consent for the use of biosamples for biomedical research.

SETTING

Cross-sectional population-based focus groups followed by an online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

12 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) Views on the importance of consent when donating residual biosamples for medical research; (2) preferences for opt-in or opt-out consent approaches and (3) preferences for different consent models.

RESULTS

Participants believed obtaining consent for use of residual biosamples was important as it was 'morally correct' to ask, and enabled people to make an active choice and retain control over their biosamples. Survey responders preferred opt-in consent (55%); the strongest predictor was being from a low socioeconomic group (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.57, p=0.001) and having a religious affiliation (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.81, p=0.04). Focus group participants had a slight preference for opt-out consent because by using this approach more biosamples would be available and facilitate research. Concerning preferred models of consent for research use of biosamples, survey responders preferred specific consent with recontact for each study for which their biosamples are eligible. Focus group participants preferred generic consent as it provided 'flexibility for researchers' and reduced the likelihood that biosamples would be wasted. The strongest predictor for preferring specific consent was preferring opt-in consent (OR 4.58, 95% CI 3.30 to 6.35, p=0.015) followed by non-'White' ethnicity (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.23 to 7.14, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a preference among the UK public for ongoing choice and control over donated biosamples; however, increased knowledge and opportunity for discussion is associated with acceptance of less restrictive consent models for some people.

What Research Participants Want to Know About Genetic Research Results: The Impact of “Genetic Exceptionalism”

The disclosure of individual genetic results has generated an ongoing debate about which rules should be followed. We aimed to identify factors related to research participants' preferences about learning the results of genomic studies using their donated tissue samples. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 279 patients from the United States and Spain who had volunteered to donate a sample for genomic research. Our results show that 48% of research participants would like to be informed about all individual results from future genomic studies using their donated tissue, especially those from the U.S. (71.4%) and those believing that genetic information poses special risks (69.7%). In addition, 16% of research participants considered genetic information to be riskier than other types of personal medical data. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that a high proportion of participants prefer to be informed about their individual results and that there is a higher preference among those research subjects who perceive their genetic information as riskier than other types of personal medical data.