Background: With the arrival of large-scale population-based genomic research studies, such as the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), the question of how to best consent participants is significant, and in an era of patient-centered research, few studies have evaluated participants' preferences about re-consent and broad consent. Using quantitative methods, this study evaluates participants' views regarding the acceptability of re-consent and broad consent in subjects from the Participant Issues Project. Methods: A total of 450 participants were recruited from a cancer genetics registry, including cancer patients, their relatives, and controls. Participants completed a secure online survey. Results: Most participants endorsed re-consent when investigating an unrelated health condition or sharing their de-identified data with an investigator at a different institution. Notification rather than re-consent was preferred when studying a different gene but the same disease. Over 80% of respondents endorsed re-consent when parents of a child gave the original consent and the child has now reached adulthood. Preferences for some scenarios varied by history of cancer at baseline, gender, stage of cancer, or case versus control group. The large majority of participants preferred the option to select broad consent categories of research. Conclusion: Understanding research participants' preferences, including their views on the need for re-consent, are critical to the success of the PMI.

Keywords:
Re-consent, Broad consent, Participants, Genetics
1.
Hawgood S, Hook-Barnard IG, O'Brien TC, Yamamoto KR: Precision medicine: beyond the inflection point. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:300.PS17.
2.
Collins FS, Varmus H: A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:793-795.
3.
Steinsbekk KS, Myskja BK, Solberg B: Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: is passive participation an ethical problem? Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:897-902.
4.
Duffy DJ: Problems, challenges and promises: perspectives on precision medicine. Brief Bioinform DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbv060.
5.
Fullerton SM, Anderson NR, Guzauskas G, Freeman D, Fryer-Edwards K: Meeting the governance challenges of next-generation biorepository research. Sci Transl Med 2010;2:15cm3.
6.
Greely HT: The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2007;8:343-364.
7.
Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Ludman EJ, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W: Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf. Science 2011;331:287-288.
8.
Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, Edwards KL, Starks H, Wiesner GL: Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010;5:83-91.
9.
Edwards KL, Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, Lewis SM, Starks H, Snapin KW, et al: Genetics researchers' and IRB professionals' attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis. Genet Med 2012;14:236-242.
10.
Hofmann B: Broadening consent - and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics 2009;35:125-129.
11.
Caulfield T: Biobanks and blanket consent: the proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. King Law J 2007;18:2090-2026.
12.
Arnason V: Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 2004;18:27-49.
13.
Tam NT, Thoa LTB, Long NP, Trang NTH, Hirayama K, Karbwang J: Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 2015;93:186-198H.
14.
Edwards KL, Korngiebel DM, Pfeifer L, Renz A, Shridhar NN, Wenzel L, et al: Participant views on consent in cancer genetic research: preparing for the precision medicine era. J Community Genet 2016;7:133-143.
15.
Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Bowen D, Finkelstein D, Griffin C Hanson J, et al: The Cancer Genetics Network: recruitment results and pilot studies. Community Genet 2003;6:171-177.
16.
Merz JF, Sankar P, Taube SE, Livolsi V: Use of human tissues in research: clarifying clinician and researcher roles and information flows. J Investig Med 1997;45:252-257.
17.
Condit CM, Korngiebel DM, Pfeifer M, Renz AD, Bowen DJ, Kaufman D, et al: What should be the character of the researcher-participant relationship? Views of participants in a longstanding cancer genetic registry. IRB 2015;37:1-10.
18.
Dillman DA: Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, Wiley, 2007.
19.
Willis GB: Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2005.
20.
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2015; MASS package (code for ordinal logistic regression; Venables WN, Ripley BD: Modern Applied Statistics with S, ed 4. Springer, New York, 2002).
21.
Precision Medicine Initiative: Privacy and Trust Principles. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/finalpmiprivacyandtrustprinciples.pdf.
22.
Ludman EJ, Fullerton SM, Spangler D, Trinidad SB, Fujii MM, Jarvik GP, et al: Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for DbGap data submission. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010;5:9-16.
23.
Edwards KL, Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, Lewis SM, Starks H, Quinn Griffin MT, Wiesner GL: Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers. Public Health Genomics 2011;14:337-345.
24.
Petrini C: ‘Broad' consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose. Soc Sci Med 2010;70:217-220.
25.
Haga SB, Beskow LM: Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetic research. Adv Genet 2008;60:505-544.
26.
Platt J, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Kardia SL, Kaufman D: Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genet Med 2014;16:11-18.
27.
Kelly SE, Spector TD, Cherkas LF, Prainsack B, Harris JM: Evaluating the consent preferences of UK research volunteers for genetic and clinical studies. PLoS One 2015;10:1-12.
28.
Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K: Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med 2008;10:831-839.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.