Suppr超能文献

协商对公众对生物库研究同意政策态度的影响。

Effect of deliberation on the public's attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research.

机构信息

Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

出版信息

Eur J Hum Genet. 2018 Feb;26(2):176-185. doi: 10.1038/s41431-017-0063-5. Epub 2018 Jan 18.

Abstract

In this study, we evaluate the effect of education and deliberation on the willingness of members of the public to donate tissue to biobank research and on their attitudes regarding various biobank consent policies. Participants were randomly assigned to a democratic deliberation (DD) group, an education group that received only written materials, and a control group. Participants completed a survey before the deliberation and two surveys post-deliberation: one on (or just after) the deliberation day, and one 4 weeks later. Subjects were asked to rate 5 biobank consent policies as acceptable (or not) and to identify the best and worst policies. Analyses compared acceptability of different policy options and changes in attitudes across the three groups. After deliberation, subjects in the DD group were less likely to find broad consent (defined here as consent for the use of donations in an unspecified range of future research studies, subject to content and process restrictions) and study-by-study consent acceptable. The DD group was also significantly less likely to endorse broad consent as the best policy (OR = 0.34), and more likely to prefer alternative consent options. These results raise ethical challenges to the current widespread reliance on broad consent in biobank research, but do not support study-by-study consent.

摘要

在这项研究中,我们评估了教育和讨论对公众成员向生物库研究捐赠组织的意愿以及他们对各种生物库同意政策的态度的影响。参与者被随机分配到民主审议(DD)组、仅接受书面材料的教育组和对照组。参与者在审议前完成了一项调查,并在审议后完成了两项调查:一项是在审议当天或之后进行的,另一项是在 4 周后进行的。要求受试者对 5 项生物库同意政策进行可接受性(或不可接受性)评估,并确定最佳和最差政策。分析比较了三组之间不同政策选择的可接受性和态度的变化。审议后,DD 组的受试者不太可能认为广泛同意(在这里定义为同意将捐赠用于未来研究研究的未指定范围,受内容和程序限制)和逐个研究同意可以接受。DD 组也不太可能将广泛同意视为最佳政策(OR=0.34),并且更倾向于选择其他同意选项。这些结果对当前生物库研究中广泛依赖广泛同意的做法提出了伦理挑战,但不支持逐个研究的同意。

相似文献

2
Biobanks and the Moral Concerns of Donors: A Democratic Deliberation.生物银行与捐赠者的道德关切:民主审议。
Qual Health Res. 2019 Nov;29(13):1942-1953. doi: 10.1177/1049732318791826. Epub 2018 Aug 10.
8
Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking.公众对生物样本库知情同意的看法。
Am J Public Health. 2009 Dec;99(12):2128-34. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.157099. Epub 2009 Oct 15.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
[Not Available].[不可用]。
J Int Bioethique Ethique Sci. 2017 Oct 27;28(3):113-117. doi: 10.3917/jib.283.0113.
10
Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent.知情同意的持久和新兴挑战。
N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 26;372(9):855-62. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1411250.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验