Glad You Asked: Participants' Opinions of Re-Consent for DbGap Data Submission

Abstract

No consensus exists about when researchers need additional participant consent (re-consent) to submit existing data to the federal database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). Re-consent for submission of their data to dbGaP was sought from 1,340 study participants, 1,159 (86%) of whom agreed. We invited the first 400 of those who agreed to complete a telephone survey about their reasoning for their consent decision and their satisfaction with the re-consent process; 365 participants completed the survey. Respondents reported that it was very (69%) or somewhat (21%) important that they were asked for their permission. Many respondents considered alternatives to consent, such as notification-only or opt-out, to be unacceptable (67% and 40%, respectively). These results suggest that re-consent for dbGaP deposition may be advisable in certain cases to anticipate and honor participant preferences.

Keywords

informed consent data sharing dbGaP

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bathe

O. F.

& McGuire

A. L.

(2009). The ethical use of existing samples for genome research. Genetics in Medicine, 11(10), 712–715.

Caulfield

McGuire

A. L.

Cho

Buchanan

J. A.

Burgess

M. M.

Danilczyk

Diaz

C. M.

Fryer-Edwards

Green

S. K.

(2008). Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: Consensus statement. PLoS Biology, 6(3), e73.

Colditz

G. A.

(2009). Constraints on data sharing: Experience from the nurses' health study. Epidemiology, 20(2), 169–171.

Gerring

(2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Greely

H. T.

(2007). The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 8, 343–364.

Helgesson

Dillner

Carlson

Bartram

C. R.

, & Hansson

M. G.

(2007). Ethical framework for previously collected biobank samples [Letter to the Editor]. Nature Biotechnology, 25(9), 973–976.

Kaufman

D. J.

Murphy-Bollinger

Scott

, & Hudson

K. L.

(2009). Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85(5), 643–654.

Kukull

W. A.

Higdon

Bowen

J. D.

McCormick

W. C.

Teri

Schellenberg

G. D.

van Belle

Jolley

, & Larson

E. B.

(2002). Dementia and Alzheimer disease incidence: A prospective cohort study. Archives of Neurology, 59(11), 1737–1746.

Lunshof

J. E.

Chadwick

Vorhaus

D. B.

, & Church

G. M.

(2008). From genetic privacy to open consent. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(5), 406–411.

10.

Mailman

M. D.

Feolo

Jin

Kimura

Tryka

Bagoutdinov

Hao

Kiang

(2007). The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nature Genetics, 39(10), 1181–1186.

11.

McGuire

A. L.

Hamilton

J. A.

Lunstroth

McCullough

L. B.

, & Goldman

(2008). DNA data sharing: Research participants' perspectives. Genetics in Medicine, 10(1), 46–53.

12.

Miles

& Huberman

(1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

13.

Tasse

A. M.

Budin-Ljosne

Knoppers

B. M.

, & Harris

J. R.

(2010). Retrospective access to data: The ENGAGE consent experience. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18(7), 641–745.

14.

Trinidad

S. B.

Fullerton

S. M.

Bares

J. M.

Jarvik

G. P.

Larson

E. B.

, & Burke

(2010). Genomic research and wide data sharing: Views of prospective participants. Genetics in Medicine. Available ahead of print at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20535021.

15.

Wendler

& Emanuel

(2002). The debate over research on stored biological samples: What do sources think? Archives of Internal Medicine, 162(13), 1457–1462.

16.

Willison

D. J.

Schwartz

Abelson

Charles

Swinton

Northrup

, & Thabane

(2007). Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: What is the opinion of the Canadian public? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(6), 706–712.