We aimed to review the attitudes and perspectives of the public and patients towards the sharing of data and biospecimens for research and to identify common dimensions, regardless of setting. Our review included systematic, scoping or thematic reviews of empirical studies retrieved from Medline (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Reviews. The main themes identified and synthesised across the 14 reviews were readiness and motivations; potential risks and safeguards; trust, transparency and accountability; autonomy and preferred type of consent; and factors influencing data and biospecimen sharing and consent. Sociodemographic factors and research and individual context remain relevant influencing factors in all settings, while preferences for types of consent are highly heterogeneous. Trusted environments and adapted consent options with participant engagement are relevant to improve research participation.
AitkenM.de St. JorreJ.PagliariC.JepsonR.Cunningham-BurleyS. (2016). Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0153-x
2.
Akpa-InyangF.ChimaS. C. (2021). South African Traditional values and beliefs regarding informed consent and limitations of the principle of respect for autonomy in African communities: A cross-cultural qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00678-4
3.
AntommariaA. H. M.BrothersK. B.MyersJ. A.FeyginY. B.AufoxS. A.BrilliantM. H.ConwayP.FullertonS. M.GarrisonN. A.HorowitzC. R.JarvikG. P.LiR.LudmanE. J.McCartyC. A.McCormickJ. B.MercaldoN. D.MyersM. F.SandersonS. C.ShrubsoleM. J., … HolmI. A. (2018). Parents’ attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobanks: A multisite experimental survey. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 9(3), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2018.1505783
4.
AromatarisE.FernandezR.GodfreyC. M.HollyC.KhalilH.TungpunkomP. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
5.
AzharuddinN. S. M.Aa’zamuddin Ahmad RadziM.AzhimA.Sha’banM.HashiA. A. (2022). Ethical issues in tissue engineering: A systematic review. Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences, 18(1), 275–289. eISSN 2636-9346
6.
BakM. A. R.PloemM. C.AteşyürekH.BlomM. T.TanH. L.WillemsD. L. (2020). Stakeholders’ perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: A systematic review. European Journal of Human Genetics, 28(4), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0503-5
7.
BallardL. M.HortonR. H.DheensaS.FenwickA.LucassenA. M. (2020). Exploring broad consent in the context of the 100,000 genomes project: A mixed methods study. European Journal of Human Genetics, 28(6), 732–741. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0570-7
8.
BarazzettiG.BosisioF.KoutaissoffD.SpencerB. (2020). Broad consent in practice: Lessons learned from a hospital-based biobank for prospective research on genomic and medical data. European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG, 28(7), 915–924. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0585-0
9.
BarnesR.VotovaK.RahimzadehV.OsmanN.PennA. M.ZawatiM. H.KnoppersB. M. (2020). Biobanking for genomic and personalized health research: Participant perceptions and preferences. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 18(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2019.0090
10.
BernasconiL.ŞenS.AngerameL.BalyegisawaA. P.Hong Yew HuiD.HotterM.HsuC. Y.ItoT.JörgerF.KrassnitzerW.PhillipsA. T.LiR.StockleyL.TayF.von Heijne WidlundC.WanM.WongC.YauH.HiemstraT. F., … SentiG. (2020). Legal and ethical framework for global health information and biospecimen exchange—an international perspective. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-0448-9
11.
Biondi-ZoccaiG. (2016). Umbrella reviews. Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies (1st ed.). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25655-9
12.
BlackD. (2002). Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95(8), 423–424. PMC.
Bracken-RocheD.BellE.MacdonaldM. E.RacineE. (2017). The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: An in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6
BullS.RobertsN.ParkerM. (2015). Views of ethical best practices in sharing individual-level data from medical and public health research: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: JERHRE, 10(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615594767
17.
CarsonC.HintonL.KurinczukJ.QuigleyM. (2019). “I haven’t met them, I don’t have any trust in them. It just feels like a big unknown”: A qualitative study exploring the determinants of consent to use human fertilisation and embryology authority registry data in research. BMJ Open, 9(5), e026469. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026469
18.
ChanT. W.MackeyS.HegneyD. G. (2012). 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. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 10(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1609.2011.00251.x
19.
ClaytonE. W.HalversonC. M.SatheN. A.MalinB. A. (2018). A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States. PLOS ONE, 13(10), e0204417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204417
CourbierS.DimondR.Bros-FacerV. (2019). Share and protect our health data: An evidence based approach to rare disease patients’ perspectives on data sharing and data protection—Quantitative survey and recommendations. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 14(1), 175. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-019-1123-4
22.
CumynA.BartonA.DaultR.CloutierA. -M.JalbertR.EthierJ. -F. (2020). Informed consent within a learning health system: A scoping review. Learning Health Systems, 4(2), e10206. https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10206
23.
CumynA.BartonA.DaultR.SafaN.CloutierA. -M.EthierJ. -F. (2021). Meta-consent for the secondary use of health data within a learning health system: A qualitative study of the public’s perspective. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00647-x
24.
D’AbramoF.SchildmannJ.VollmannJ. (2015). Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: A review of empirical data and ethical analysis. BMC Medical Ethics, 16(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0053-5
25.
de JonghD.MasseyE. K.BerishviliE.FonsecaL. M.LebretonF.BellofattoK.BignardJ.SeisslerJ.BuerckL. W.HonarpishehM.ZhangY.LeiY.PehlM.FollenziA.OlgasiC.CucciA.BorsottiC.AssanelliS.PiemontiL., … the VANGUARD consortium. (2022). Organoids: A systematic review of ethical issues. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 13(1), 337. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-022-02950-9
26.
De VriesR. G.TomlinsonT.KimH. M.KrenzC.HaggertyD.RyanK. A.KimS. Y. H. (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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159113
27.
DomaradzkiJ.PawlikowskiJ. (2019). Public attitudes toward biobanking of human biological material for research purposes: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(12), 2209. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122209
28.
DoveE. S.ÖzdemirV. (2015). What role for law, human rights, and bioethics in an age of big data, consortia science, and consortia ethics? The importance of trustworthiness. Laws, 4(3), 515–540. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws4030515
29.
DunnK. M.JordanK.LaceyR. J.ShapleyM.JinksC. (2004). Patterns of consent in epidemiologic research: Evidence from over 25,000 responders. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159(11), 1087–1094. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh141
30.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, (2022). European partnerships for health resilience, Publications Office of the European Union.https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/227357
31.
GarrisonN.SatheN. A.AntommariaA. H. M.HolmI. A.SandersonS. C.SmithM. E.McPheetersM. L.ClaytonE. W. (2016). A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genetics in Medicine, 18(7), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.138
32.
GianfrediV.NucciD.AmerioA.SignorelliC.OdoneA.DinuM. (2022). What can we expect from an umbrella review?Advances in Nutrition, 13(2), 684–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmab150
GreenhalghT.RobertG.MacfarlaneF.BateP.KyriakidouO.PeacockR. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 61(2), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001
35.
Grootens-WiegersP.HeinI. M.van den BroekJ. M.de VriesM. C. (2017). Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: Developmental and neuroscientific aspects. BMC Pediatrics, 17(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-017-0869-x
36.
HaasM. A.TeareH.PrictorM.CeregraG.VidgenM. E.BunkerD.KayeJ.BoughtwoodT. (2021). “CTRL”: An online, dynamic consent and participant engagement platform working towards solving the complexities of consent in genomic research. European Journal of Human Genetics : EJHG, 29(4), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00782-w
37.
HillE. M.TurnerE. L.MartinR. M.DonovanJ. 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), 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-72
38.
HoweN.GilesE.Newbury-BirchD.McCollE. (2018). Systematic review of participants’ attitudes towards data sharing: A thematic synthesis. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 23(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617751555
39.
HusedzinovicA.OseD.SchickhardtC.FröhlingS.WinklerE. C. (2015). Stakeholders’ perspectives on biobank-based genomic research: Systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(12), 1607–1614. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.27
40.
HutchingsE.LoomesM.ButowP.BoyleF. M. (2020). A systematic literature review of health consumer attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: A focus on privacy, trust, and transparency. Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 235. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01481-9
41.
HutchingsE.LoomesM.ButowP.BoyleF. M. (2021). A systematic literature review of attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: A focus on consent. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01663-z
IvanovaD.KatsaounisP. (2021). Real-time dynamic tiered e-consent: A novel tool for patients’ engagement and common ontology system for the management of medical data. Innovations in Digital Health, Diagnostics, and Biomarkers, 1(2), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.36401/IDDB-21-01
44.
KalkmanS.MostertM.GerlingerC.van DeldenJ. J. M.van ThielG. J. M. W. (2019). Responsible data sharing in international health research: A systematic review of principles and norms. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0359-9
45.
KasperbauerT. J.SchwartzP. H. (2020). Genetic data aren’t so special: Causes and implications of reidentification. The Hastings Center Report, 50(5), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1183
46.
LangeM. M.RogersW.DoddsS. (2013). Vulnerability in research ethics: A way forward: Vulnerability in research ethics: A way forward. Bioethics, 27(6), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12032
47.
LipphardtV.SurduM.EllebrechtN.PfaffelhuberP.WienrothM.RappoldG. A. (2021). Europe’s roma people are vulnerable to poor practice in genetics. Nature, 599(7885), 368–371. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03416-3
48.
MackleyM. P.FletcherB.ParkerM.WatkinsH.OrmondroydE. (2017). Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Genetics in Medicine, 19(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.109
49.
MansonN. C. (2019). The ethics of biobanking: Assessing the right to control problem for broad consent. Bioethics, 33(5), 540–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12550
50.
MascalzoniD.DoveE. S.RubinsteinY.DawkinsH. J. S.KoleA.MccormackP.WoodsS.RiessO.SchaeferF.LochmüllerH.KnoppersB. M.HanssonM. (2015). International charter of principles for sharing bio-specimens and data. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(6), 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.197
51.
MaxwellL.GilyanR.ChavanS. A.MersonL.SaxenaA.TerryR. (2021). Guidance for ensuring fair and ethical broad consent for future use. A scoping review protocol. [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].F1000Research, 10, 102. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.51312.1
52.
MekaI. A.KanuO. O.AdagbaK. O.OfforJ.EmodiN. R.Iseoluwa-AdelokikiA. O.MekaA. O. (2021). Perspectives of buruli ulcer patients toward informed consent—an insight from Nigeria. Annals of African Medicine, 20(3), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.4103/aam.aam_27_20
53.
MiddletonA.MorleyK. I.BraginE.FirthH. V.HurlesM. E.WrightC. F.ParkerM., & DDD study. (2016). Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG, 24(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.58
54.
MilneR.MorleyK. I.AlmarriM. A.AnwerS.AtutornuJ.BaranovaE. E.BevanP.CerezoM.CongY.CostaA.CritchleyC.FernowJ.GoodhandP.HasanQ.HibinoA.HouelandG.HowardH. C.HussainS. Z.MalmgrenC. I., … MiddletonA. (2021). Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: Public views across 22 countries. Genome Medicine, 13(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-021-00903-0
55.
MoradiS.MahdizadehH.ŠarićT.KimJ.HaratiJ.ShahsavaraniH.GreberB.MooreJ. B. (2019). Research and therapy with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs): Social, legal, and ethical considerations. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 10(1), 341. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-019-1455-y
56.
NguyenM. T.GoldblattJ.IsasiR.JagutM.JonkerA. H.KaufmannP.OuilladeL.Molnar-GaborF.ShabaniM.SidE.TasséA. M.Wong-RiegerD.KnoppersB. M. (2019). Model consent clauses for rare disease research. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0390-x
57.
NobileH.VermeulenE.ThysK.BergmannM. M.BorryP. (2013). Why do participants enroll in population biobank studies? A systematic literature review. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 13(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1586/erm.12.116
58.
Nunes VilazaG.CoyleD.BardramJ. E. (2021). Public attitudes to digital health research repositories: Cross-sectional international survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(10), e31294. https://doi.org/10.2196/31294
59.
PlougT.HolmS. (2020). The ‘expiry problem’ of broad consent for biobank research—and why a meta consent model solves it. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(9), 629–631. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106117
60.
PopayJ.RogersA.WilliamsG. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239800800305
61.
PughJ. (2020). Informed consent, autonomy, and beliefs. In Autonomy, rationality, and contemporary bioethics [Internet] (pp. 149–182). Oxford University Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556864/.
62.
RacineE.Bracken-RocheD. (2019). Enriching the concept of vulnerability in research ethics: An integrative and functional account. Bioethics, 33(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12471
63.
RahimzadehV.KnoppersB. M.BartlettG. (2020). Ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) of responsible data sharing involving children in genomics: A systematic literature review of reasons. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 11(4), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1818875
64.
RehmH. L.PageA. J. H.SmithL.AdamsJ. B.AlterovitzG.BabbL. J.BarkleyM. P.BaudisM.BeauvaisM. J. S.BeckT.BeckmannJ. S.BeltranS.BernickD.BernierA.BonfieldJ. K.BoughtwoodT. F.BourqueG.BowersS. R.BrookesA. J., … BirneyE. (2021). GA4GH: International policies and standards for data sharing across genomic research and healthcare. Cell Genomics, 1(2), 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xgen.2021.100029
65.
RisoB.TupaselaA.VearsD. F.FelzmannH.CockbainJ.LoiM.KongsholmN. C. H.ZulloS.RakicV. (2017). Ethical sharing of health data in online platforms – which values should be considered?Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0060-z
66.
RothsteinM. A. (2021). Informed consent for secondary research under the new NIH data sharing policy. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics : A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 49(3), 489–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2021.69
67.
SágváriB.GulyásA.KoltaiJ. (2021). Attitudes towards participation in a passive data collection experiment. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 21(18), 6085. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21186085
68.
SallochS.SchildmannJ.VollmannJ. (2012). Empirical research in medical ethics: How conceptual accounts on normative-empirical collaboration may improve research practice. BMC Medical Ethics, 13(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-5
69.
SamuelG. N.FarsidesB. (2018). Public trust and ‘ethics review’ as a commodity: The case of genomics England limited and the UK’s 100,000 genomes project. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 21(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9810-1
70.
ShabaniM.BezuidenhoutL.BorryP. (2014). Attitudes of research participants and the general public towards genomic data sharing: A systematic literature review. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 14(8), 1053–1065. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737159.2014.961917
71.
ShahN.CoathupV.TeareH.ForgieI.GiordanoG. N.HansenT. H.GroeneveldL.HudsonM.PearsonE.RuettenH.KayeJ. (2019). Sharing data for future research’engaging participants’ views about data governance beyond the original project: A DIRECT study. Genetics in Medicine, 21(5), 1131–1138. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0299-7
72.
SpruitS. L.van de PoelI.DoornN. (2016). Informed consent in asymmetrical relationships: An investigation into relational factors that influence room for reflection. Nanoethics, 10(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0262-5
73.
StephensonA. C.BakerS.ZepsN. (2007). Attitudes of relatives of patients in intensive care and emergency departments to surrogate consent to research on incapacitated participants. Critical Care and Resuscitation : Journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 9(1), 40–50.
74.
SundbyA.BoolsenM. W.BurgdorfK. S.UllumH.HansenT. F.MorsO. (2018). Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research. Human Genomics, 12(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-018-0144-8
75.
TeareH. J. A.PrictorM.KayeJ. (2021). Reflections on dynamic consent in biomedical research: The story so far. European Journal of Human Genetics, 29(4), 649–656. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00771-z
76.
ThielD. B.PlattJ.PlattT.KingS. B.FisherN.SheltonR.KardiaS. L. R. (2015). Testing an online, dynamic consent portal for large population biobank research. Public Health Genomics, 18(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1159/000366128
77.
TomlinsonT.De VriesR.RyanK.KimH. M.LehpamerN.KimS. Y. H. (2015). Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank. JAMA, 313(4), 417. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.16363
78.
TosoniS.VorugantiI.LajkoszK.MustafaS.PhillipsA.KimS. J.WongR. K. S.WillisonD.VirtanenC.HeestersA.LiuF.-F. (2022). Patient consent preferences on sharing personal health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: “the more informed we are, the more likely we are to help.”BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00790-z
79.
VezyridisP.TimmonsS. (2019). Resisting big data exploitations in public healthcare: Free riding or distributive justice?Sociology of Health & Illness, 41(8), 1585–1599. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12969
80.
WendlerD. (2013). Broad versus blanket consent for research with human biological samples. Hastings Center Report, 43(5), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.200
