title: Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Some large population biobanks that house biospecimens and health information for research seek broad consent from participants, whereas others reconsent for specific new studies. Understanding research participants' attitudes and preferences about broad and narrow consent may improve recruitment, retention, and public support.
  
  
  METHODS
  An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of 4,659 US adults to examine relationships between consent preferences and demographic factors, beliefs about privacy and the value of research, and the perceived trustworthiness of researchers.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Participants preferred broad consent (52%) over study-by-study consent models (48%). Higher preferences for study-by-study consent observed among black non-Hispanic respondents and respondents with lower income and education were explained by differences in the prevalence of one or more beliefs about the study. Respondents with fears about research and those who would feel respected if asked for permission for each research use preferred study-by-study consent. Preference for broad consent was related to the desire not to be bothered with multiple requests and the belief that the study could lead to improved treatments, cures, and lives saved.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These data suggest that support for broad consent is contingent on sufficient information about data use. Work with research participants and community leaders to understand, respond to, and influence opinions about a given, ongoing study may improve uptake of broad consent.
authors: 1] Life Sciences and Society Program, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA [2] Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
authors: Jodyn
authors: J
authors: Platt
authors: Genetics and Public Policy Center, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA.
authors: Juli
authors: J
authors: Bollinger
authors: Genetics and Public Policy Center, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA.
authors: Rachel
authors: R
authors: Dvoskin
authors: 1] Life Sciences and Society Program, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA [2] Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
authors: Sharon L R
authors: SL
authors: Kardia
authors: Genetics and Public Policy Center, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA.
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Kaufman
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D018070:Biological Specimen Banks / Q000941:ethics*; D015331:Cohort Studies; D003625:Data Collection; D003710:Demography; D036281:Genetic Research / Q000941:ethics*; D023281:Genomics / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D020407:Internet; D011639:Public Opinion; D014481:United States
references: Soc Sci Med. 2012 Apr;74(8):1305-9
references: 22398141
references: Brief Bioinform. 2008 Jan;9(1):14-24
references: 17959611
references: Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Mar;3(3):221-5
references: 11972159
references: Public Health Genomics. 2013;16(4):145-58
references: 23796763
references: Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(6):345-52
references: 19940458
references: PLoS Biol. 2008 Mar 25;6(3):e73
references: 18366258
references: Genet Med. 2008 Nov;10(11):831-9
references: 19011407
references: Nature. 2007 Jan 18;445(7125):259
references: 17230172
references: Am J Public Health. 2009 Dec;99(12):2128-34
references: 19833988
references: Science. 2008 Nov 7;322(5903):881-8
references: 18988837
references: Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Jun 1;165(11):1328-35
references: 17372189
references: Am J Hum Genet. 2009 Nov;85(5):643-54
references: 19878915
references: Sci Transl Med. 2010 Jan 20;2(15):15cm3
references: 20371468