Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jul;18(7):663-71.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.138. Epub 2015 Nov 19.

A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States

Affiliations

A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States

Nanibaa' A Garrison et al. Genet Med. 2016 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: In 2011, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed that de-identified human data and specimens be included in biobanks only if patients provide consent. The National Institutes of Health Genomic Data Sharing policy went into effect in 2015, requiring broad consent from almost all research participants.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of attitudes toward biobanking, broad consent, and data sharing. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Science, EthxWeb, and GenETHX. Study screening was conducted using DistillerSR.

Results: The final 48 studies included surveys (n = 23), focus groups (n = 8), mixed methods (n = 14), interviews (n = 1), and consent form analyses (n = 2). Study quality was characterized as good (n = 19), fair (n = 27), and poor (n = 2). Although many participants objected, broad consent was often preferred over tiered or study-specific consent, particularly when broad consent was the only option, samples were de-identified, logistics of biobanks were communicated, and privacy was addressed. Willingness for data to be shared was high, but it was lower among individuals from under-represented minorities, individuals with privacy and confidentiality concerns, and when pharmaceutical companies had access to data.

Conclusions: Additional research is needed to understand factors affecting willingness to give broad consent for biobank research and data sharing in order to address concerns to enhance acceptability.Genet Med 18 7, 663-671.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Disposition of studies identified for this review.

Comment in

  • Biobanks and consent with a terminal clause.
    Patryn RK, Zagaja A. Patryn RK, et al. Genet Med. 2016 Jul;18(7):750. doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.26. Epub 2016 Mar 31. Genet Med. 2016. PMID: 27031085 No abstract available.
  • Response to Patryn and Zagaja.
    Garrison NA, Clayton EW, Smith ME, Holm IA. Garrison NA, et al. Genet Med. 2016 Jul;18(7):751. doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.27. Epub 2016 Apr 14. Genet Med. 2016. PMID: 27359094 No abstract available.

References

    1. HITECH Act amendments to the HIPAA Privacy Rule. 45 C.F.R. §164.508 (c)(2015).
    1. Office of Human Research Protections. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 76 Fed. Reg. 44512–31. 26 July 2011. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-26/html/2011–18792.htm. Accessed 17 April, 2015.
    1. National Institutes of Health. Genomic Data Sharing Policy, 79 Fed. Reg. 51345–54. 28 August 2014. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/08/28/2014–20385/final-nih.... Accessed 17 April, 2015.
    1. National Cancer Institute/National Action Plan on Breast Cancer. NCI/NAPBC Model Informed Consent Documents. http://oprs.usc.edu/files/2013/01/modelconsenthandouts.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2015.
    1. Tomlinson T. Respecting donors to biobank research. Hastings Cent Rep 2013;43:41–47. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources