Biobank Participants’ Attitudes toward Requiring Understanding for Biobank Consent

Q2 Social Sciences Ethics & human research Pub Date : 2021-12-22 DOI:10.1002/eahr.500114
T.J. Kasperbauer, Colin Halverson, Abigail Garcia, Karen K. Schmidt, Peter H. Schwartz
{"title":"Biobank Participants’ Attitudes toward Requiring Understanding for Biobank Consent","authors":"T.J. Kasperbauer,&nbsp;Colin Halverson,&nbsp;Abigail Garcia,&nbsp;Karen K. Schmidt,&nbsp;Peter H. Schwartz","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Biobank participants often do not understand the information they are provided during the informed consent process. Ethicists and other stakeholders have disagreed, however, on the appropriate response to these failures in understanding. This paper describes an attempt to address this issue by conducting knowledge tests with 22 recent biobank enrollees, followed by in-depth, semistructured interviews about the goal of understanding in biobank consent. The interviews revealed that while biobank enrollees thought the information on the knowledge test was important, they did not think that performance on the test should affect whether individuals are permitted to enroll in a biobank. Three main themes emerged from the interviews: helping others by contributing to research is more important than understanding consent forms, less understanding is required because biobank-based research is low risk, and only a small amount of information in the consent form is really essential. These perspectives should be considered in discussing the ethics and governance of biobank consent processes.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"44 1","pages":"18-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eahr.500114","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Biobank participants often do not understand the information they are provided during the informed consent process. Ethicists and other stakeholders have disagreed, however, on the appropriate response to these failures in understanding. This paper describes an attempt to address this issue by conducting knowledge tests with 22 recent biobank enrollees, followed by in-depth, semistructured interviews about the goal of understanding in biobank consent. The interviews revealed that while biobank enrollees thought the information on the knowledge test was important, they did not think that performance on the test should affect whether individuals are permitted to enroll in a biobank. Three main themes emerged from the interviews: helping others by contributing to research is more important than understanding consent forms, less understanding is required because biobank-based research is low risk, and only a small amount of information in the consent form is really essential. These perspectives should be considered in discussing the ethics and governance of biobank consent processes.

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
生物样本库参与者对生物样本库同意书要求理解的态度
生物样本库的参与者通常不理解他们在知情同意过程中获得的信息。然而,伦理学家和其他利益相关者对这些理解失败的适当回应意见不一。本文描述了通过对22名最近的生物库登记者进行知识测试来解决这一问题的尝试,随后进行了深入的半结构化访谈,了解生物库同意的目标。访谈显示,虽然生物样本库的注册者认为知识测试中的信息很重要,但他们不认为在测试中的表现应该影响个人是否被允许注册生物样本库。访谈中出现了三个主要主题:通过为研究做出贡献来帮助他人比理解同意书更重要;由于基于生物库的研究风险较低,因此需要的理解较少;同意书中只有少量信息是真正必要的。在讨论生物库同意过程的伦理和治理时,应考虑这些观点。
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
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Issue Information (Epistemic) Injustice and Resistance in Canadian Research Ethics Governance Ethical Considerations for Conducting Community-Engaged Research with Women Experiencing Homelessness and Incarcerated Women Investigating Moral Distress in Clinical Research Professionals—A Deep Dive into Troubled Waters Issue Information
×
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