Suchergebnisse

Few studies have explored public perspectives on community advisory board (CAB) involvement in biobank-based research. This study held focus groups (n = 7) with 48 individuals residing in the catchment of an emerging comprehensive tissue and DNA biobank in the state of Iowa. Participants recognized benefits of bringing CABs into biobank oversight, including additional levels of protection they could afford research participants. Yet, CAB goals of protecting participants were also seen as potentially antithetical to research and medical progress. Participants expressed uncertainty about the relationship of CABs to IRBs, communities, and industry. Findings suggest members of the public are in principle supportive of CAB involvement in biobanking, yet anticipate a range of problems and concerns. These perceptions will need to be proactively addressed.

Digital informed consent may better inform individuals about health research and increase participation. In the United States and elsewhere, minorities and rural populations are underrepresented in health research and may benefit from well-designed electronic informed consent (eIC). Seven focus groups were conducted with 50 Caucasian, African American, and rural patients in the United States. Participants were asked their preferences for a paper versus electronic informed consent document. Participants found the e-version easier to use, more interesting, and better for understanding. Minority participants emphasized limited access, computer literacy, and trust barriers to eIC. Rural participants were concerned about accessibility, connectivity, privacy, and confidentiality. People see value in electronic consenting. Researchers should consider barriers to eIC among underrepresented populations before recruitment.

It is unclear how genomic incidental finding (GIF) prospects should be addressed in informed consent processes. An exploratory study on this topic was conducted with 34 purposively sampled Chairs of institutional review boards (IRBs) at centers conducting genome-wide association studies. Most Chairs (96%) reported no knowledge of local IRB requirements regarding GIFs and informed consent. Chairs suggested consent processes should address the prospect of, and study disclosure policy on, GIFs; GIF management and follow-up; potential clinical significance of GIFs; potential risks of GIF disclosure; an opportunity for participants to opt out of GIF disclosure; and duration of the researcher's duty to disclose GIFs. Chairs were concerned about participant disclosure preferences changing over time; inherent limitations in determining the scope and accuracy of claims about GIFs; and making consent processes longer and more complex. IRB Chair and other stakeholder perspectives can help advance informed consent efforts to accommodate GIF prospects.

Some individuals' understanding of informed consent (IC) information may improve with electronic delivery, but others may benefit from face-to-face (F2F). This randomized, multisite study explores how individuals from diverse backgrounds understand electronic IC documents versus F2F, their confidence in understanding, and enrollment in research. A total of 501 patients at two U.S. biobanks with diverse populations participated. There were no overall differences between electronic and F2F understanding, but F2F predicted higher confidence in understanding and enrollment. Ethnicity and a higher educational level predicted higher understanding and confidence. Study findings suggest that electronic consent may lead to better understanding for non-Hispanic patients of higher socioeconomic status. F2F processes may lead to better understanding and higher enrollment of patients from Hispanic and lower socioeconomic levels. Researchers should carefully consider how they implement electronic IC processes and whether to maintain an F2F process to better address the needs and limitations of some populations.