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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Jun;26(3):1308-1317.
doi: 10.1111/hex.13746. Epub 2023 Apr 4.

Expanding the boundaries of previously obtained informed consent in research: Views from participants in the Personalised Risk-based Mammascreening study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Expanding the boundaries of previously obtained informed consent in research: Views from participants in the Personalised Risk-based Mammascreening study

Jennifer E Lutomski et al. Health Expect. 2023 Jun.

Abstract

Introduction: Understanding participants' concerns and information needs regarding broadened consent is crucial to ensure transparency and participant autonomy. Our study qualitatively examined these issues in women participating in the Personalized RISk-based MAmmascreening study (PRISMA). The original PRISMA informed consent was project-specific (i.e., breast cancer research), limiting the scope of secondary research. We explored participants' needs for broadened consent to preserve informed decision-making while maximising the potential re-use of data.

Methods: Focus groups (FGs) were performed following a semistructured discussion guide. Two independent researchers analysed the data thematically using an inductive approach.

Findings: Twenty-three asymptomatic women and 13 women diagnosed with breast cancer were randomly divided into six FGs. Four superordinate themes were identified: (1) Normalization, (2) Attitude towards the pharmaceutical industry, (3) Privacy and (4) Knowledge. Our participants viewed data sharing as an important conduit for advancing medical science. Perceived integrity was more often attributed to noncommercial than commercial parties, with a marked mistrust towards the pharmaceutical industry. Most requested information needs related to data protection. Participants' ideal consent process would confer a range of options; for example, they would be able to choose with whom data can be shared, whether data will be de-identified or anonymous, the expiration date of their consent and how, if requested, general and personal study results would be disclosed.

Conclusion: Our participants expressed clear information needs and a strong desire to be actively engaged in future data sharing decisions. Given that many researchers collaborate with commercial parties, building public confidence in these institutions would be beneficial. Illustrative examples addressing privacy concerns and clarifying difficult terms would aid consent decision-making. Although our participants displayed great altruism in sharing their data and accepted that broad consent would ultimately facilitate future research, broad consent did not reflect their ideal situation. Dynamic consent may be an option but warrants further feasibility research.

Patient and public contribution: Women were recruited from the general breast cancer screening population. Their perceptions and information needs, as reported in this study, will not only inform broadened consent for PRISMA but ideally guide other consent templates and decisions regarding consent processes.

Keywords: cancer screening; focus groups; informed consent; personal autonomy; qualitative research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Final thematic map of perspectives on broadened consent: Themes and subthemes.

References

    1. Grady C. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):855‐862. 10.1056/NEJMra1411250 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Steinsbekk KS, Kåre Myskja B, Solberg B. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: is passive participation an ethical problem? Eur J Human Genet. 2013;21(9):897‐902. 10.1038/ejhg.2012.282 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, et al. Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):34‐42. 10.1080/15265161.2015.1062162 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Salvaterra E, Lecchi L, Giovanelli S, et al. Banking together—a unified model of informed consent for biobanking. EMBO Rep. 2008;9(4):307‐313. 10.1038/embor.2008.41 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barnes R, Votova K, Rahimzadeh V, et al. Biobanking for genomic and personalized health research: participant perceptions and preferences. Biopreserv Biobank. 2020;18(3):204‐212. 10.1089/bio.2019.0090 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types