Cancer patient perceptions on the ethical and legal issues related to biobanking
Open Access
- 8 March 2013
- journal article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Medical Genomics
- Vol. 6 (1), 8
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-6-8
Abstract
Background Understanding the perception of patients on research ethics issues related to biobanking is important to enrich ethical discourse and help inform policy. Methods We examined the views of leukemia patients undergoing treatment in clinics located in the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. An initial written survey was provided to 100 patients (64.1% response rate) followed by a follow-up survey (62.5% response rate) covering the topics of informed consent, withdrawal, anonymity, incidental findings and the return of results, ownership, and trust. Results The majority (59.6%) preferred one-time consent, 30.3% desired a tiered consent approach that provides multiple options, and 10.1% preferred re-consent for future research. When asked different questions on re-consent, most (58%) reported that re-consent was a waste of time and money, but 51.7% indicated they would feel respected and involved if asked to re-consent. The majority of patients (62.2%) stated they had a right to withdraw their consent, but many changed their mind in the follow-up survey explaining that they should not have the right to withdraw consent. Nearly all of the patients (98%) desired being informed of incidental health findings and explained that the information was useful. Of these, 67.3% of patients preferred that researchers inform them and their doctors of the results. The majority of patients (62.2%) stated that the research institution owns the samples whereas 19.4% stated that the participants owned their samples. Patients had a great deal of trust in doctors, hospitals and government-funded university researchers, moderate levels of trust for provincial governments and industry-funded university researchers, and low levels of trust towards industry and insurance companies. Conclusions Many cancer patients surveyed preferred a one-time consent although others desired some form of control. The majority of participants wanted a continuing right to withdraw consent and nearly all wanted to be informed of incidental findings related to their health. Patients had a great deal of trust in their medical professionals and publically-funded researchers as opposed to profit-based industries and insurance companies.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Incorporating Exclusion Clauses into Informed Consent for BiobankingCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2013
- Engaging African-Americans about biobanks and the return of research resultsJournal of Community Genetics, 2012
- Data withdrawal in randomized controlled trials: Defining the problem and proposing solutions: A commentaryContemporary Clinical Trials, 2011
- Genomic research and wide data sharing: Views of prospective participantsGenetics in Medicine, 2010
- The Havasupai Indian Tribe Case — Lessons for Research Involving Stored Biologic SamplesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Obtaining ‘fresh’ consent for genetic research with biological samples archived 10 years agoEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Informed consent in biobank research: A deliberative approach to the debateSocial Science & Medicine (1982), 2009
- Public Expectations for Return of Results from Large-Cohort Genetic ResearchAmerican Journal of Bioethics, 2008
- Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and RecommendationsThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2008
- DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectivesGenetics in Medicine, 2008