• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

对比遗传性癌症家族风险个体与生物医学研究人员在生物样本研究方面的伦理观点:对研究人员培训的启示

Contrasting the ethical perspectives of biospecimen research among individuals with familial risk for hereditary cancer and biomedical researchers: implications for researcher training.

作者信息

Quinn Gwendolyn P, Koskan Alexis, Sehovic Ivana, Pal Tuya, Meade Cathy, Gwede Clement K

机构信息

1 Population Sciences Division, Moffitt Cancer Center , Tampa, Florida.

出版信息

Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2014 Jul;18(7):467-73. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2013.0461. Epub 2014 Apr 30.

DOI:10.1089/gtmb.2013.0461
PMID:24786355
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4094006/
Abstract

While ethical concerns about participating in biospecimen research have been previously identified, few studies have reported the concerns among individuals with familial risk for hereditary cancer (IFRs). At the same time, biomedical researchers often lack training in discussing such concerns to potential donors. This study explores IFRs' and biomedical researchers' perceptions of ethical concerns about participating in biobanking research. In separate focus groups, IFRs and biomedical researchers participated in 90-min telephone focus groups. Focus group questions centered on knowledge about laws that protect the confidentiality of biospecimen donors, understanding of informed consent and study procedures, and preferences for being recontacted about potential incidental discovery and also study results. A total of 40 IFRs and 32 biomedical researchers participated in the focus groups. Results demonstrated discrepancies between the perceptions of IFRs and researchers. IFRs' concerns centered on health information protection; potential discrimination by insurers and employers; and preferences for being recontacted upon discovery of gene mutations or to communicate study results. Researchers perceived that participants understood laws protecting donors' privacy and (detailed study information outlined in the informed consent process), study outcomes were used to create a training tool kit to increase researchers' understanding of IFRs' concerns about biobanking.

摘要

虽然此前已发现参与生物样本研究的伦理问题,但很少有研究报告有遗传性癌症家族风险的个体(IFRs)的相关担忧。与此同时,生物医学研究人员在与潜在捐赠者讨论此类担忧方面往往缺乏培训。本研究探讨了IFRs和生物医学研究人员对参与生物样本库研究的伦理问题的看法。在单独的焦点小组中,IFRs和生物医学研究人员参加了90分钟的电话焦点小组。焦点小组问题集中在对保护生物样本捐赠者保密性的法律的了解、对知情同意和研究程序的理解,以及对就潜在的偶然发现和研究结果再次被联系的偏好。共有40名IFRs和32名生物医学研究人员参加了焦点小组。结果表明IFRs和研究人员的看法存在差异。IFRs的担忧集中在健康信息保护;保险公司和雇主的潜在歧视;以及在发现基因突变或传达研究结果时再次被联系的偏好。研究人员认为参与者理解保护捐赠者隐私的法律以及(知情同意过程中概述的详细研究信息),研究结果被用于创建一个培训工具包,以提高研究人员对IFRs对生物样本库担忧问题的理解。

相似文献

1
Contrasting the ethical perspectives of biospecimen research among individuals with familial risk for hereditary cancer and biomedical researchers: implications for researcher training.对比遗传性癌症家族风险个体与生物医学研究人员在生物样本研究方面的伦理观点:对研究人员培训的启示
Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2014 Jul;18(7):467-73. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2013.0461. Epub 2014 Apr 30.
2
A Web-Based Platform for Educating Researchers About Bioethics and Biobanking.一个用于教育研究人员有关生物伦理和生物样本库的基于网络的平台。
J Cancer Educ. 2016 Jun;31(2):397-404. doi: 10.1007/s13187-015-0812-5.
3
First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants.首先,勿施伤害:健康研究人员在与研究参与者分享研究结果方面存在的伦理问题。
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2020 Apr-Jun;11(2):104-113. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1737980. Epub 2020 Mar 12.
4
"It's all about trust": reflections of researchers on the complexity and controversy surrounding biobanking in South Africa.“一切都关乎信任”:研究人员对南非生物样本库相关复杂性与争议的反思
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Oct 10;17(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0140-2.
5
Can we do better? Researchers' experiences with ethical review boards on projects with later life as a focus.我们能做得更好吗?研究人员在以晚年生活为重点的项目中与伦理审查委员会的经历。
J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;43(3):701-7. doi: 10.3233/JAD-141956.
6
Consent and research governance in biobanks: evidence from focus groups with medical researchers.生物样本库中的知情同意与研究治理:来自与医学研究人员焦点小组的证据
Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(5):232-42. doi: 10.1159/000336544. Epub 2012 Jun 20.
7
Research Ethics for Clinical Researchers.临床研究人员的研究伦理。
Methods Mol Biol. 2021;2249:53-64. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1138-8_4.
8
Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers' perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies.智能家居,私人住宅?一项关于技术研究人员对开发智能家居健康技术中伦理问题认知的实证研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Apr 4;18(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0183-z.
9
Biobanking in Israel 2016-17; expressed perceptions versus real life enrollment.2016 - 2017年以色列生物样本库;表达的看法与实际入组情况
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Nov 17;18(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0223-8.
10
To Share or Not to Share? A Survey of Biomedical Researchers in the U.S. Southwest, an Ethnically Diverse Region.分享还是不分享?对美国西南部一个种族多样化地区的生物医学研究人员的调查。
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 17;10(9):e0138239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138239. eCollection 2015.

引用本文的文献

1
A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States.一项关于美国个体对隐私和遗传信息看法的系统性文献回顾。
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 31;13(10):e0204417. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204417. eCollection 2018.
2
A Web-Based Platform for Educating Researchers About Bioethics and Biobanking.一个用于教育研究人员有关生物伦理和生物样本库的基于网络的平台。
J Cancer Educ. 2016 Jun;31(2):397-404. doi: 10.1007/s13187-015-0812-5.

本文引用的文献

1
ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.ACMG 临床外显子组和基因组测序中偶然发现报告的推荐标准。
Genet Med. 2013 Jul;15(7):565-74. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.73. Epub 2013 Jun 20.
2
Interactive informed consent: randomized comparison with paper consents.交互式知情同意:与纸质同意书的随机比较。
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58603. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058603. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
3
Community-based partnership to identify keys to biospecimen research participation.基于社区的伙伴关系,以确定生物样本研究参与的关键因素。
J Cancer Educ. 2013 Mar;28(1):43-51. doi: 10.1007/s13187-012-0421-5.
4
Sharing individual research results with biospecimen contributors: point.与生物样本提供者分享个人研究结果:要点。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Feb;21(2):256-9. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0853.
5
Formative research on perceptions of biobanking: what community members think.关于生物样本库认知的形成性研究:社区成员的看法
J Cancer Educ. 2012 Mar;27(1):91-9. doi: 10.1007/s13187-011-0275-2.
6
Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine.生物库:个性化医疗的基础。
Curr Opin Oncol. 2011 Jan;23(1):112-9. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e32834161b8.
7
Structuring public engagement for effective input in policy development on human tissue biobanking.构建公众参与机制,以便在人类组织生物样本库政策制定过程中提供有效投入。
Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(4):197-206. doi: 10.1159/000279621. Epub 2010 Apr 15.
8
Examining the public refusal to consent to DNA biobanking: empirical data from a Swedish population-based study.审视公众拒绝同意 DNA 生物库:一项基于瑞典人群的实证研究数据。
J Med Ethics. 2010 Feb;36(2):93-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.032367.
9
Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment: a review of instruments.评估临床研究或治疗的决策能力:工具综述
Am J Psychiatry. 2006 Aug;163(8):1323-34. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1323.
10
Ethical issues in the collection, storage, and research use of human biological materials.人类生物样本的采集、存储及研究使用中的伦理问题。
J Lab Clin Med. 2004 Nov;144(5):229-34; discussion 226. doi: 10.1016/j.lab.2004.08.003.