Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics Volume 13, 2013 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
319
Views
47
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Special Report

Why do participants enroll in population biobank studies? A systematic literature review

Hélène Nobile German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany; Centre for Biomedical Ethics & Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany. [email protected]
,
Eric Vermeulen VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Kristof Thys Centre for Biomedical Ethics & Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Manuela M Bergmann German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany
&
Pascal Borry Centre for Biomedical Ethics & Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Pages 35-47 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Zika E, Paci D, Braun A et al. A European Survey on Biobanks: trends and issues. Public Health Genomics 14(2), 96–103 (2011).
  • Zielhuis GA. Biobanking for epidemiology. Public Health 126(3), 214–216 (2012).
  • Deutscher Ethikrat. Human Biobank for Research. Deutscher Ethikrat, Berlin, Germany (2010).
  • Cambon-Thomsen A. The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5(11), 866–873 (2004).
  • Knoppers B, Kharaboyan L. “Deconstructing” biobank communication of results. SCRIPTed 6(3), 677–684 (2009).
  • Patel M, Doku V, Tennakoon L. Challenges in recruitment of research participants. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 9, 229–238 (2003).
  • Porteri C, Borry P. A proposal for a model of informed consent for the collection, storage and use of biological materials for research purposes. Patient Educ. Couns. 71(1), 136–142 (2008).
  • Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol. 7(3), 266–269 (2006).
  • MansonN, O’NeillO. In: Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2007).
  • Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW. Clinical ethics versus clinical research. Am. J. Bioeth. 6(4), 53–55; discussion W42–W45 (2006).
  • Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent. Rep. 17(2), 20–24 (1987).
  • Clayton EW, Ross LF. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 295(1), 37; author reply 37–38 (2006).
  • Treloar SA, Morley KI, Taylor SD, Hall WD. Why do they do it? A pilot study towards understanding participant motivation and experience in a large genetic epidemiological study of endometriosis. Community Genet. 10(2), 61–71 (2007).
  • Hallowell N, Cooke S, Crawford G, Lucassen A, Parker M, Snowdon C. An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research. J. Med. Ethics 36(1), 37–45 (2010).
  • Henderson G, Garrett J, Bussey-Jones J, Moloney ME, Blumenthal C, Corbie-Smith G. Great expectations: views of genetic research participants regarding current and future genetic studies. Genet. Med. 10(3), 193–200 (2008).
  • Busby H. Consent, trust and ethics: reflections on the findings of an interview based study with people donating blood for genetic research for research within the NHS. Clin. Ethics 1, 211–215 (2006).
  • Cadigan RJ, Michie M, Henderson G, Davis AM, Beskow LM. The meaning of genetic research results: reflections from individuals with and without a known genetic disorder. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 6(4), 30–40 (2011).
  • Richards MP, Ponder M, Pharoah P, Everest S, Mackay J. Issues of consent and feedback in a genetic epidemiological study of women with breast cancer. J. Med. Ethics 29(2), 93–96 (2003).
  • Michie M, Henderson G, Garrett J, Corbie-Smith G. “If I could in a small way help”: motivations for and beliefs about sample donation for genetic research. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 6(2), 57–70 (2011).
  • Axler RE, Irvine R, Lipworth W, Morrell B, Kerridge IH. Why might people donate tissue for cancer research? Insights from organ/tissue/blood donation and clinical research. Pathobiology 75(6), 323–329 (2008).
  • Tabor HK, Brazg T, Crouch J et al. Parent perspectives on pediatric genetic research and implications for genotype-driven research recruitment. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 6(4), 41–52 (2011).
  • Harris ED, Ziniel SI, Amatruda JG et al. The beliefs, motivations, and expectations of parents who have enrolled their children in a genetic biorepository. Genet. Med. 14(3), 330–337 (2012).
  • Haimes E, Whong-Barr M. Key issues in genetic epidemiology: lessons from a UK based empirical study. TRAMES 8(I/2), 105–163 (2004).
  • Helgesson G, Hansson MG, Ludvigsson J, Swartling U. Practical matters, rather than lack of trust, motivate non-participation in a long-term cohort trial. Pediatr. Diabetes 10(6), 408–412 (2009).
  • Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet. Med. 12(8), 486–495 (2010).
  • Melas PA, Sjöholm LK, Forsner T et al. Examining the public refusal to consent to DNA biobanking: empirical data from a Swedish population-based study. J. Med. Ethics 36(2), 93–98 (2010).
  • Kirkland SA, Raina PS, Wolfson C et al. Exploring the acceptability and feasibility of conducting a large longitudinal population-based study in Canada. Can. J. Aging 28(3), 231–242 (2009).
  • Halverson CM, Ross LF. Incidental findings of therapeutic misconception in biobank-based research. Genet. Med. 14(6), 611–615 (2012).
  • Meulenkamp TM, Gevers SK, Bovenberg JA, Koppelman GH, van Hylckama Vlieg A, Smets EM. Communication of biobanks’ research results: what do (potential) participants want? Am. J. Med. Genet. A 152A(10), 2482–2492 (2010).
  • Godard B, Marshall J, Laberge C. Community engagement in genetic research: results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE Project. Community Genet. 10(3), 147–158 (2007).
  • McCarty CA, Chapman-Stone D, Derfus T, Giampietro PF, Fost N; Marshfield Clinic PMRP Community Advisory Group. Community consultation and communication for a population-based DNA biobank: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 146A(23), 3026–3033 (2008).
  • Johnsson L, Helgesson G, Rafnar T et al. Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 18(11), 1261–1264 (2010).
  • Hartge P. Participation in population studies. Epidemiology 17(3), 252–254 (2006).
  • Booker CL, Harding S, Benzeval M. A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. BMC Public Health 11, 249 (2011).
  • Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft RE, Jackson CJ et al. Beyond “misunderstanding”: written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Soc. Sci. Med. 65(11), 2212–2222 (2007).
  • Streicher SA, Sanderson SC, Jabs EW et al. Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: a focus group study. J. Community Genet. 2(3), 153–163 (2011).
  • Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME. Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 13(6), 368–377 (2010).
  • McNamara B. The ‘Trusting Citizen’: Participating in Genetic Research (PSLaT-TCTS). Public Sociologies: Lessons and Trans-Tasman Comparisons: TASA/SAANZ 2007 Joint Conference Proceedings. Department of Sociology, University of Auckland, Australia, 2007.
  • Allen J, McNamara B. Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research. Bioethics 25(3), 155–166 (2011).
  • Haddow G. “We only did it because he asked us”: gendered accounts of participation in a population genetic data collection. Soc. Sci. Med. 69(7), 1010–1017 (2009).
  • Joseph JW, Neidich AB, Ober C, Ross LF. Empirical data about women’s attitudes toward a biobank focused on pregnancy outcomes. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 146(3), 305–311 (2008).
  • Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, Chisholm RL, Wolf WA. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 149A(2), 188–198 (2009).
  • Sinicrope PS, Patten CA, Bonnema SM et al. Healthy women’s motivators and barriers to participation in a breast cancer cohort study: a qualitative study. Ann. Epidemiol. 19(7), 484–493 (2009).
  • McCarty CA, Nair A, Austin DM, Giampietro PF. Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project. Community Genet. 10(1), 2–9 (2007).
  • Daniels JL, Savitz DA, Bradley C et al. Attitudes toward participation in a pregnancy and child cohort study. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 20(3), 260–266 (2006).
  • Fry CL. Research participation and internal normativity: understanding why people participate. Am. J. Bioeth. 8(10), 43–44 (2008).
  • Hoeyer K. ‘Science is really needed – that’s all I know’: informed consent and the non-verbal practices of collecting blood for genetic research in northern Sweden. New Genet. Soc. 22(3), 229–244 (2003).
  • Tutton R. Gift relationships in genetics research. Sci. Cult. (Lond). 11(4), 523–542 (2002).
  • Ducournau P, Strand R. Trust, distrust and co-production: the relationship between research biobanks and donors. In: The Ethics of Research Biobanking. Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hofman B (Eds). Springer, New York, USA, 115–133 (2009).
  • Kass NE, Sugarman J, Faden R, Schoch-Spana M. Trust, the fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Cent. Rep. 26(5), 25–29 (1996).
  • Campbell AV. The ethical challenges of genetic databases: safeguarding altruism and trust. King’s Law J. 18(2), 227–245 (2007).
  • Jansen LA. The ethics of altruism in clinical research. Hastings Cent. Rep. 39(4), 26–36 (2009).
  • Barr M. ‘I’m not really read up on genetics’: biobanks and the social context of informed consent. BioSocieties 1, 251–262 (2006).
  • de Melo-Martín I, Ho A. Beyond informed consent: the therapeutic misconception and trust. J. Med. Ethics 34(3), 202–205 (2008).
  • Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert JS. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J. Med. Ethics 34(3), 210–213 (2008).
  • Parker LS. The future of incidental findings: should they be viewed as benefits? J. Law. Med. Ethics 36(2), 341–351, 213 (2008).
  • Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J. Law. Med. Ethics 36(2), 219–248, 211 (2008).
  • Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet. Med. 14(4), 361–384 (2012).
  • Fernandez CV, Kodish E, Weijer C. Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB 25(3), 12–19 (2003).
  • Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioeth. 6(6), 8–17 (2006).
  • Fisher R. A closer look: are we subjects or are we donors? Am. J. Bioeth. 8(11), 49–50 (2008).
  • Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet. Med. 10(11), 831–839 (2008).
  • Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am. J. Bioeth. 8(11), 36–43 (2008).
  • Green RC, Ziniel SI, Huntington NL et al. Diagnostic misconception underlies some preferences for return of genetic research results from a DNA repository. Presented at: Conference of American Society of Human Genetics. Montréal, Canada, 2011 (Poster Presentation).
  • Hoeyer K. The ethics of research biobanking: a critical review of the literature. Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev. 25, 429–452 (2008).
  • Toccaceli V, Fagnani C, Nisticò L et al. Research understanding, attitude and awareness towards biobanking: a survey among Italian twin participants to a genetic epidemiological study. BMC Med. Ethics 10, 4 (2009).
  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62(10), 1006–1012 (2009).
  • Coope C, Rose K, Glasier A, Stephenson J. How do women feel about their cervical cytology samples being used for research? J. Fam. Plann. Reprod. Health Care 38(1), 30–34 (2012).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.