Dataset Information

To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research.

ABSTRACT: Despite growing concerns toward maintaining participants' privacy, individual investigators collecting tissue and other biological specimens for genomic analysis are encouraged to obtain informed consent for broad data sharing. Our purpose was to assess the effect on research enrollment and data sharing decisions of three different consent types (traditional, binary, or tiered) with varying levels of control and choices regarding data sharing.A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 323 eligible adult participants being recruited into one of six genome studies at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, between January 2008 and August 2009. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental consent documents (traditional, n = 110; binary, n = 103; and tiered, n = 110). Debriefing in follow-up visits provided participants a detailed review of all consent types and the chance to change data sharing choices or decline genome study participation.Before debriefing, 83.9% of participants chose public data release. After debriefing, 53.1% chose public data release, 33.1% chose restricted (controlled access database) release, and 13.7% opted out of data sharing. Only one participant declined genome study participation due to data sharing concerns.Our findings indicate that most participants are willing to publicly release their genomic data; however, a significant portion prefers restricted release. These results suggest discordance between existing data sharing policies and participants' judgments and desires.

SUBMITTER: McGuire AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3203320 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research.

McGuire Amy L AL Oliver Jill M JM Slashinski Melody J MJ Graves Jennifer L JL Wang Tao T Kelly P Adam PA Fisher William W Lau Ching C CC Goss John J Okcu Mehmet M Treadwell-Deering Diane D Goldman Alica M AM Noebels Jeffrey L JL Hilsenbeck Susan G SG

Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 20111101 11

<h4>Purpose</h4>Despite growing concerns toward maintaining participants' privacy, individual investigators collecting tissue and other biological specimens for genomic analysis are encouraged to obtain informed consent for broad data sharing. Our purpose was to assess the effect on research enrollment and data sharing decisions of three different consent types (traditional, binary, or tiered) with varying levels of control and choices regarding data sharing.<h4>Methods</h4>A single-blinded, ran ...[more]

PMID: 21785360

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveInformation on the rights of subjects in clinical trials has become increasingly complex and difficult to understand. This study evaluates whether a simple booklet which is relevant to all research studies improves the understanding of rights needed for subjects to provide informed consent.Methods21 currently used informed consent forms (ICF) from international clinical trials were separated into information related to the specific research study, and general information on participants' rights. A booklet designed to provide information on participants' rights which used simple language was developed to replace this information in current ICF's Readability of each component of ICF's and the booklet was then assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading ease score (FK). To further evaluate the booklet 282 hospital inpatients were randomised to one of three ways to present research information; a standard ICF, the booklet combined with a short ICF, or the booklet combined with a simplified ICF. Comprehension of information related to the research proposal and to participant's rights was assessed by questionnaire.ResultsInformation related to participants' rights contributed an average of 44% of the words in standard ICFs, and was harder to read than information describing the clinical trial (FK 25 versus (vs.) 41 respectively, p?=?0.0003). The booklet reduced the number of words and improved FK from 25 to 42. The simplified ICF had a slightly higher FK score than the standard ICF (50 vs. 42). Comprehension assessed in inpatients was better for the booklet and short ICF 62%, (95% confidence interval (CI) 56 to 67) correct, or simplified ICF 62% (CI 58 to 68) correct compared to 52%, (CI 47 to 57) correct for the standard ICF, p?=?0.009. This was due to better understanding of questions on rights (62% vs. 49% correct, p?=?0.0008). Comprehension of study related information was similar for the simplified and standard ICF (60% vs. 64% correct, p?=?0.68).ConclusionsA booklet provides a simple consistent approach to providing information on participant rights which is relevant to all research studies, and improves comprehension of patients who typically participate in clinical trials.

Project description:ObjectiveTelemedicine networks are beginning to provide an avenue for conducting emergency medicine research, but using telemedicine to recruit participants for clinical trials has not been validated. The goal of this consent study was to determine whether patient comprehension of telemedicine-enabled research informed consent is noninferior to standard face-to-face (F2F) research informed consent.MethodsA prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial was performed in a 60,000-visit Midwestern academic emergency department (ED) to test whether telemedicine-enabled research informed consent provided noninferior comprehension compared with standard consent. This study was conducted as part of a parent clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of 0.12% oral chlorhexidine gluconate in preventing hospital-acquired pneumonia among adult ED patients with expected hospital admission. Prior to being recruited into the study, potential participants were randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio to consent by telemedicine versus standard F2F consent. Telemedicine connectivity was provided using a commercially available interface (REACH platform, Vidyo Inc.) to an emergency physician located in another part of the ED. Comprehension of research consent (primary outcome) was measured using the modified quality of informed consent (QuIC) instrument, a validated tool for measuring research informed consent comprehension. Parent trial accrual rate and qualitative survey data were secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 131 patients were randomized (n = 64, telemedicine), and 101 QuIC surveys were completed. Comprehension of research informed consent using telemedicine was not inferior to F2F consent (QuIC scores 74.4 ± 8.1 vs. 74.4 ± 6.9 on a 100-point scale, p = 0.999). Subjective understanding of consent (p = 0.194) and parent trial study accrual rates (56% vs. 69%, p = 0.142) were similar.ConclusionTelemedicine is noninferior to F2F consent for delivering research informed consent, with no detected differences in comprehension and patient-reported understanding. This consent study will inform design of future telemedicine-enabled clinical trials.

Project description:ObjectivesUK National Health Service/Health and Social Care (NHS/HSC) data are variably shared between healthcare organisations for direct care, and increasingly de-identified for research. Few large-scale studies have examined public opinion on sharing, including of mental health (MH) versus physical health (PH) data. We measured data sharing preferences.Design/setting/interventions/outcomesPre-registered anonymous online survey, measuring expressed preferences, recruiting February to September 2020. Participants were randomised to one of three framing statements regarding MH versus PH data.ParticipantsOpen to all UK residents. Participants numbered 29 275; 40% had experienced an MH condition.ResultsMost (76%) supported identifiable data sharing for direct clinical care without explicit consent, but 20% opposed this. Preference for clinical/identifiable sharing decreased with geographical distance and was slightly less for MH than PH data, with small framing effects. Preference for research/de-identified data sharing without explicit consent showed the same small PH/MH and framing effects, plus greater preference for sharing structured data than de-identified free text. There was net support for research sharing to the NHS, academic institutions, and national research charities, net ambivalence about sharing to profit-making companies researching treatments, and net opposition to sharing to other companies (similar to sharing publicly). De-identified linkage to non-health data was generally supported, except to data held by private companies. We report demographic influences on preference. A majority (89%) supported a single NHS mechanism to choose uses of their data. Support for data sharing increased during COVID-19.ConclusionsSupport for healthcare data sharing for direct care without explicit consent is broad but not universal. There is net support for the sharing of de-identified data for research to the NHS, academia, and the charitable sector, but not the commercial sector. A single national NHS-hosted system for patients to control the use of their NHS data for clinical purposes and for research would have broad support.Trial registration numberISRCTN37444142.

Dataset Information

To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research.

Publications

To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets