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 Nov 24;16(1):162.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0263-7.

Conducting a large, multi-site survey about patients' views on broad consent: challenges and solutions

Maureen E Smith  1 , Saskia C Sanderson  2   3 , Kyle B Brothers  4 , Melanie F Myers  5 , Jennifer McCormick  6 , Sharon Aufox  7 , Martha J Shrubsole  8 , Nanibaá A Garrison  9 , Nathaniel D Mercaldo  8 , Jonathan S Schildcrout  8 , Ellen Wright Clayton  8 , Armand H Matheny Antommaria  5 , Melissa Basford  8 , Murray Brilliant  10 , John J Connolly  11 , Stephanie M Fullerton  12 , Carol R Horowitz  2 , Gail P Jarvik  12 , Dave Kaufman  13 , Terri Kitchner  10 , Rongling Li  13 , Evette J Ludman  14 , Catherine McCarty  15 , Valerie McManus  10 , Sarah Stallings  8 , Janet L Williams  16 , Ingrid A Holm  17
Affiliations

Conducting a large, multi-site survey about patients' views on broad consent: challenges and solutions

Maureen E Smith et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: As biobanks play an increasing role in the genomic research that will lead to precision medicine, input from diverse and large populations of patients in a variety of health care settings will be important in order to successfully carry out such studies. One important topic is participants' views towards consent and data sharing, especially since the 2011 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), and subsequently the 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) were issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). These notices required that participants consent to research uses of their de-identified tissue samples and most clinical data, and allowing such consent be obtained in a one-time, open-ended or "broad" fashion. Conducting a survey across multiple sites provides clear advantages to either a single site survey or using a large online database, and is a potentially powerful way of understanding the views of diverse populations on this topic.

Methods: A workgroup of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, a national consortium of 9 sites (13 separate institutions, 11 clinical centers) supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) that combines DNA biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for large-scale genetic research, conducted a survey to understand patients' views on consent, sample and data sharing for future research, biobank governance, data protection, and return of research results.

Results: Working across 9 sites to design and conduct a national survey presented challenges in organization, meeting human subjects guidelines at each institution, and survey development and implementation. The challenges were met through a committee structure to address each aspect of the project with representatives from all sites. Each committee's output was integrated into the overall survey plan. A number of site-specific issues were successfully managed allowing the survey to be developed and implemented uniformly across 11 clinical centers.

Conclusions: Conducting a survey across a number of institutions with different cultures and practices is a methodological and logistical challenge. With a clear infrastructure, collaborative attitudes, excellent lines of communication, and the right expertise, this can be accomplished successfully.

Keywords: Cognitive interviews; Consent; Genomics; Institutional Review Board; Multi-site; Pilot; Survey.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Survey mailing procedures with times between each step noted
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Garrison NA, Sathe NA, Antommaria AH, Holm IA, Sanderson SC, Smith ME, McPheeters ML, Clayton EW. A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genet Med. 2016 18(7):663–71. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goldenberg AJ, Hull SC, Botkin JR, Wilfond BS. Pediatric biobanks: approaching informed consent for continuing research after children grow up. J Pediatr. 2009;155(4):578–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.04.034. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hull SC, Sharp RR, Botkin JR, Brown M, Hughes M, Sugarman J, Schwinn D, Sankar P, Bolcic-Jankovic D, Clarridge BR, et al. Patients’ views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. Am J Bioeth. 2008;8(10):62–70. doi: 10.1080/15265160802478404. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2128–34. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.157099. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wendler D, Emanuel E. The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(13):1457–62. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.13.1457. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms