Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission
- PMID: 20831417
- PMCID: PMC3071850
- DOI: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.9
Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission
Abstract
No consensus exists about when researchers need additional participant consent (reconsent) 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 reconsent 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.
References
-
- Bathe OF, McGuire AL. The ethical use of existing samples for genome research. Genetics in Medicine. 2009;11(10):712–715. - PubMed
-
- Gerring J. Case study research: principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
-
- Greely HT. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. 2007;8:343–364. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources