Motivating and Discouraging Factors for Bipolar Patient Participation in Genomic Research.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Public Health Genomics Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-03-03 DOI:10.1159/000513723
Eric J Vallender, Mark E Ladner, Margaret O Akinhanmi, Felicia V Caples, Mark A Frye, Joyce E Balls-Berry
{"title":"Motivating and Discouraging Factors for Bipolar Patient Participation in Genomic Research.","authors":"Eric J Vallender,&nbsp;Mark E Ladner,&nbsp;Margaret O Akinhanmi,&nbsp;Felicia V Caples,&nbsp;Mark A Frye,&nbsp;Joyce E Balls-Berry","doi":"10.1159/000513723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The goal of this project was to better understand the motivating and discouraging factors toward genetic research and biobank programs in patients with bipolar disorder, particularly across gender and racial identities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey (n = 63) of adults diagnosed with bipolar disorder was conducted at the general psychiatric inpatient unit and outpatient clinic at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Participants were asked to rate on a Likert scale their attitudes toward medical research generally, mental health research specifically, and willingness to participate in a bipolar DNA biobank. Last, they were asked to endorse motivating factors or concerns for their attitude toward participation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Neither attitudes toward research nor willingness to participate in a bipolar biobank differed across gender, age, or education level, but Black/African American participants were statistically significantly less likely to endorse a willingness to participate in a biobank compared to White participants. As observed in previous work, Black/African American participants were significantly more likely to endorse concerns regarding violations of trust, privacy, or autonomy. However, while there were no significant differences in discouraging factors among individuals who indicated an opposition to participating in a biobank compared to those who indicated support, there was a significant decrease in support of motivating factors, including increasing knowledge, personal benefit, and duty to community, for those not interested in participating.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Black/African American participants with bipolar disorder were more likely to express concerns about DNA and biobank research. But while race was a contributing factor to support or opposition to biobanking for bipolar disorder research, more salient was insufficient positive motivation. These results highlight the need to emphasize contemporary safeguards on DNA research and biobanking as an ethical duty and to identify the need for community-based educational interventions to promote a greater understanding of the positive benefits to motivate increased research participation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000513723","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000513723","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Aims: The goal of this project was to better understand the motivating and discouraging factors toward genetic research and biobank programs in patients with bipolar disorder, particularly across gender and racial identities.

Methods: A survey (n = 63) of adults diagnosed with bipolar disorder was conducted at the general psychiatric inpatient unit and outpatient clinic at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Participants were asked to rate on a Likert scale their attitudes toward medical research generally, mental health research specifically, and willingness to participate in a bipolar DNA biobank. Last, they were asked to endorse motivating factors or concerns for their attitude toward participation.

Results: Neither attitudes toward research nor willingness to participate in a bipolar biobank differed across gender, age, or education level, but Black/African American participants were statistically significantly less likely to endorse a willingness to participate in a biobank compared to White participants. As observed in previous work, Black/African American participants were significantly more likely to endorse concerns regarding violations of trust, privacy, or autonomy. However, while there were no significant differences in discouraging factors among individuals who indicated an opposition to participating in a biobank compared to those who indicated support, there was a significant decrease in support of motivating factors, including increasing knowledge, personal benefit, and duty to community, for those not interested in participating.

Conclusions: Black/African American participants with bipolar disorder were more likely to express concerns about DNA and biobank research. But while race was a contributing factor to support or opposition to biobanking for bipolar disorder research, more salient was insufficient positive motivation. These results highlight the need to emphasize contemporary safeguards on DNA research and biobanking as an ethical duty and to identify the need for community-based educational interventions to promote a greater understanding of the positive benefits to motivate increased research participation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
双相患者参与基因组研究的激励因素和抑制因素。
目的:该项目的目的是更好地了解对双相情感障碍患者的基因研究和生物库项目的激励和阻碍因素,特别是跨性别和种族身份。方法:对密西西比大学医学中心普通精神科住院部和门诊诊断为双相情感障碍的成人进行调查(n = 63)。参与者被要求用李克特量表评价他们对医学研究的态度,特别是心理健康研究,以及参与双相DNA生物库的意愿。最后,他们被要求支持他们对参与态度的激励因素或关注点。结果:对研究的态度和参与双相生物库的意愿在性别、年龄或教育水平上都没有差异,但与白人参与者相比,黑人/非裔美国人参与者在统计上明显不太可能赞同参与生物库的意愿。正如在之前的研究中所观察到的那样,黑人/非裔美国人参与者更有可能支持对侵犯信任、隐私或自主权的担忧。然而,尽管反对参与生物银行的个体与支持参与生物银行的个体相比,在令人沮丧的因素上没有显著差异,但对于那些对参与生物银行不感兴趣的人来说,对激励因素(包括增加知识、个人利益和对社区的责任)的支持显著减少。结论:患有双相情感障碍的黑人/非裔美国人更有可能表达对DNA和生物银行研究的担忧。但是,虽然种族是支持或反对双相情感障碍研究生物银行的一个因素,但更突出的是积极动机不足。这些结果突出表明,有必要强调当代对DNA研究和生物银行的保障措施是一种道德责任,并确定需要以社区为基础的教育干预措施,以促进对积极利益的更多理解,从而激励更多的研究参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Genomics
Public Health Genomics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.
期刊最新文献
"The Biggest Struggle:" Navigating Trust and Uncertainty in Genetic Variant Interpretation. "Should I let them know I have this?": Multifaceted genetic discrimination and limited awareness of legal protections amongst individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes. Who's on your genomics research team? Consumer experiences from Australia. Development and Pilot Testing of Evidence-Based Interventions to Improve Adherence after Receiving a Genetic Result. Co-creating the experience of consent for newborn genome sequencing (The Generation Study).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1