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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

broad consent biobanking biospecimen donor informed consent ethical issues survey

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baer

A. R.

Smith

M. L.

Bendell

J. C.

(2011). Donating tissue for research: Patient and provider perspectives. Journal of Oncology Practice, 7, 334-337.

Bardill

Garrison

N. A.

(2015). Naming indigenous concerns, framing considerations for stored biospecimens. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 73-75.

Brown

K. M.

Drake

B. F.

Gehlert

Wolf

L. E.

DuBois

Seo

. . . Kaphingst

K. A.

(2016). Differences in preferences for models of consent for biobanks between Black and White women. Journal of Community Genetics, 7, 41-49.

Burke

Evans

B. J.

Jarvik

G. P.

(2014). Return of results: Ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care. American Journal of Medical Genetics Seminars in Medical Genetics 166C(1), 105-11.

Caulfield

McGuire

A. L.

Cho

Buchanan

J. A.

Burgess

M. M.

Danilczyk

. . . Timmons

(2008). Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: Consensus statement. PLoS Biology, 6(3), e73. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060073

Chen

D. T.

Rosenstein

D. L.

Muthappan

Hilsenbeck

S. G.

Miller

F. G.

Emanuel

E. J.

Wendler

(2005). Research with stored biological samples: What do research participants want? Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 652-655.

Christenhusz

G. M.

Devriendt

Dierickx

(2013). To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 248-255.

D’Abramo

Schildmann

Vollmann

(2015). Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: A review of empirical data and ethical analysis. BMC Medical Ethics, 16, Article 60.

Dasgupta

Bollinger

Mathews

D. J.

Neumann

N. M.

Rattani

Sugarman

(2014). Patients’ attitudes toward the donation of biological materials for the derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 14, 9-12. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2013.12.006

10.

De Souza

Y. G.

Greenspan

J. S

. (2013). Biobanking past, present and future: Responsibilities and benefits. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, 27, 303-312. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835c1244

11.

De Vries

R. G.

Tomlinson

Kim

H. M.

Krenz

Haggerty

Ryan

K. A.

Kim

S. Y

. (2016). Understanding the public’s reservations about broad consent and study-by-study consent for donations to a biobank: Results of a national survey. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0159113. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159113

12.

De Vries

R. G.

Tomlinson

Kim

H. M.

Krenz

C. D.

Ryan

K. A.

Lehpamer

Kim

S. Y

. (2016). The moral concerns of biobank donors: The effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 12, Article 3. doi:10.1186/s40504-016-0036-4

13.

Ewing

A. T.

Erby

L. A.

Bollinger

Tetteyfio

Ricks-Santi

L. J.

Kaufman

(2015). Demographic differences in willingness to provide broad and narrow consent for biobank research. BioPreservation and BioBanking, 13, 98-106. doi:10.1089/bio.2014.0032

14.

Garrison

N. A.

Sathe

N. A.

Antommaria

A. H.

Holm

I. A.

Sanderson

S. C.

Smith

M. E.

. . . Clayton

E. W.

(2016). A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genetics in Medicine, 18, 663-671. doi:10.1038/gim.2015.138

15.

Grady

Eckstein

Berkman

Brock

Cook-Deegan

Fullerton

S. M.

. . . Kim

(2015). Broad consent for research with biological samples: Workshop conclusions. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 34-42.

16.

Hall

M. A.

Camacho

Lawlor

J. S.

Depuy

Sugarman

Weinfurt

(2006). Measuring trust in medical researchers. Medical Care, 44, 1048-1053. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000228023.37087.cb

17.

Health and Human Services. (2017). Protection of human subjects. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/07/26/2011-18792/human-subjects-research-protections-enhancing-protections-for-research-subjects-and-reducing-burden

18.

Helft

P. R.

Champion

V. L.

Eckles

Johnson

C. S.

Meslin

E. M.

(2007). Cancer patients’ attitudes toward future research uses of stored human biological materials. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2, 15-22. doi:10.1525/jer.2007.2.3.15

19.

Hill

E. M.

Turner

E. L.

Martin

R. M.

Donovan

J. L.

(2013). “Let’s get the best quality research we can”: Public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: A systematic review and qualitative study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), Article 72.

20.

Hoeyer

Olofsson

B.-O.

Mjörndal

Lynöe

(2004). Informed consent and biobanks: A population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 32, 224-229.

21.

Hull

S. C.

Sharp

R. R.

Botkin

J. R.

Brown

Hughes

Sugarman

. . . Wilfond

B. S.

(2008). Patients’ views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8, 62-70. doi:10.1080/15265160802478404

22.

Jarvik

G. P.

Amendola

L. M.

Berg

J. S.

Brothers

Clayton

E. W.

Chung

. . . Gallego

C. J.

(2014). Return of genomic results to research participants: The floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 94, 818-826.

23.

Kaphingst

K. A.

Janoff

J. M.

Harris

L. N.

Emmons

K. M.

(2006). Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clinical Genetics, 69, 393-398. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006.00614.x

24.

Kaufman

D. J.

Murphy-Bollinger

Scott

Hudson

K. L.

(2009). Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 85, 643-654. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002

25.

Kern

M. H.

(2010). Clinician attitudes and intentions toward participation in a DNA biobank. Thesis, Case Western Reserve University.

26.

Knoppers

B. M.

Ma’n

H. Z.

Sénécal

(2015). Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing. Nature Reviews Genetics, 16, 553-559.

27.

Lipworth

Morrell

Irvine

Kerridge

(2009). An empirical reappraisal of public trust in biobanking research: Rethinking restrictive consent requirements. Journal of Law and Medicine, 17, 119-132.

28.

Loe

Robertson

C. T.

Winkelman

D. A.

(2015). Cascading consent for research on biobank specimens. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 68-70.

29.

Lolkema

M. P.

Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk

C. G.

Bredenoord

A. L.

Kapitein

Roach

Cuppen

. . . Voest

E. E.

(2013). Ethical, legal, and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31, 1842-1848. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2789

30.

Lowenthal

Lipnick

Rao

Hull

S. C.

(2012). Specimen collection for induced pluripotent stem cell research: Harmonizing the approach to informed consent. Stem Cells Translational Medicine, 1, 409-421. doi:10.5966/sctm.2012-0029

31.

Master

Nelson

Murdoch

Caulfield

(2012). Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nature Methods, 9, 885-888.

32.

McGuire

A. L.

Caulfield

Cho

M. K.

(2008). Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9, 152-156. doi:10.1038/nrg2302

33.

McGuire

A. L.

Gibbs

R. A.

(2006). Genetics: No longer de-identified. Science, 312, 370-371. doi:10.1126/science.1125339

34.

Murphy

Scott

Kaufman

Geller

LeRoy

Hudson

(2008). Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(11), 36-43. doi:10.1080/15265160802513093

35.

National Institutes of Health: All of Us Research Program. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://allofus.nih.gov/

36.

NPRM for Revisions to the Common Rule. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-26/pdf/2011-18792.pdf

37.

Pentz

R. D.

Billot

Wendler

(2006). Research on stored biological samples: Views of African American and White American cancer patients. American Journal of Medical Genetics: Part A, 140, 733-739. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.31154

38.

Ploug

Holm

(2015). Going beyond the false dichotomy of broad or specific consent: A meta-perspective on participant choice in research using human tissue. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 44-46.

39.

Registry

(2017). The federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/html/2017-01058.htm

40.

Sanderson

S. C.

Brothers

K. B.

Mercaldo

N. D.

Clayton

E. W.

Antommaria

A. H. M.

Aufox

S. A.

. . . Holm

I. A.

(2017). Public attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobank research: A large multi-site experimental survey in the US. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 100, 414-427. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.021

41.

Sanderson

S. C.

Linderman

M. D.

Suckiel

S. A.

Diaz

G. A.

Zinberg

R. E.

Ferryman

. . . Schadt

E. E.

(2015). Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: Baseline findings from the HealthSeq project. European Journal of Human Genetics, 24, 14-20.

42.

Schwartz

M. D.

Rothenberg

Joseph

Benkendorf

Lerman

(2001). Consent to the use of stored DNA for genetics research: A survey of attitudes in the Jewish population. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 98, 336-342.

43.

Siminoff

L. A.

Wilson-Genderson

Mosavel

Barker

Trgina

Traino

H. M.

(2017). Confidentiality in biobanking research: A comparison of donor and nondonor families’ understanding of risks. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, 21, 171-177. doi:10.1089/gtmb.2016.0407

44.

Simon

C. M.

L‘Heureux

Murray

J. C.

Winokur

Weinar

Newbury

. . . Zimmerman

(2011). Active choice but not too active: Public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 821-831.

45.

Stegmayr

Asplund

(2002). Informed consent for genetic research on blood stored for more than a decade: A population based study. British Medical Journal, 325(7365), Article 634.

46.

Steinsbekk

K. S.

Myskja

B. K.

Solberg

(2013). Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem? European Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 897-902.

47.

Thiel

D. B.

Platt

King

S. B.

Fisher

Shelton

Kardia

S. L.

(2014). Testing an online, dynamic consent portal for large population biobank research. Public Health Genomics, 18, 26-39.

48.

Tomlinson

(2013). Respecting donors to biobank research. Hastings Center Report, 43, 41-47. doi:10.1002/hast.115

49.

Tomlinson

De Vries

Ryan

Kim

H. M.

Lehpamer

Kim

S. Y.

(2015). Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank. Journal of the American Medical Association, 313, 417-419.

50.

Trinidad

S. B.

Fullerton

S. M.

Bares

J. M.

Jarvik

G. P.

Larson

E. B.

Burke

(2012). Informed consent in genome-scale research: What do prospective participants think? AJOB Primary Research, 3, 3-11.

51.

Valle-Mansilla

J. I.

Ruiz-Canela

Sulmasy

D. P.

(2010). Patients’ attitudes to informed consent for genomic research with donated samples. Cancer Investigation, 28, 726-734.

52.

Vaught

(2016). Biobanking comes of age: The transition to biospecimen science. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 56, 211-228.

53.

Vermeulen

Schmidt

M. K.

Aaronson

N. K.

Kuenen

van Leeuwen

F. E.

(2009). Obtaining “fresh” consent for genetic research with biological samples archived 10 years ago. European Journal of Cancer, 45, 1168-1174. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.022

54.

Wang

S. S.

Fridinger

Sheedy

K. M.

Khoury

M. J.

(2001). Public attitudes regarding the donation and storage of blood specimens for genetic research. Public Health Genomics, 4, 18-26.

55.

Weinar

(2014). Introduction to biospecimens. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices, 10, 1-4.

56.

Wendler

(2006). One-time general consent for research on biological samples. British Medical Journal 332, Article 544. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7540.544

57.

Wendler

(2011). Research with biological samples. In Emanuel

C. G. E. J.

Crouch

R. A.

Lie

R. K.

Miller

F. G.

Wendler

(Eds.), The oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 290-298). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

58.

Wendler

Emanuel

(2002). The debate over research on stored biological samples: What do sources think? Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 1457-1462.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB