Faculty of Medicine, Institute Ethics History Humanities, University of Geneva, CMU/1 rue Michel Servet, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland.
Department of Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Rue Gabrielle Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Genève, Switzerland.
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 May 18;22(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00633-3.
In this article, we address questions regarding how people consider what they do or do not consent to and the reasons why. This article presents the findings of a citizen forum study conducted by the University of Geneva in partnership with the Geneva University Hospitals to explore the opinions and concerns of members of the public regarding predictive oncology, genetic sequencing, and cancer.
This paper presents the results of a citizen forum that included 73 participants. A research tool titled "the mechanics of consent" was designed for this study. This tool is a table encouraging participants to reflect on social and research actors, types of data, and desired levels of control while sharing different types of data with different actors. Participants' discussion that led to the completion of each table were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.
The results are a compilation of responses from the mechanics of consent tool divided into two sections; the first presents quantitative results of collective responses regarding attitudes to consent to donate their data. The second section present qualitative findings emerged from the discussion amongst participants.
Choice and control of personal data is crucial for the public to be able to decide who and how to trust. Key information to be disclosed to potential research participants shall include information about potential risks and benefits; who will be accessing and using their data; as well as assurances that their choice will be respected. Furthermore, researchers ought to make sure they are trustworthy, by acting in a competent, reliable, and honest manner. Governance systems ought to be better equipped to address ethical issues raise by the growing presence of non-traditional research actors, consent of exchanges of data via digital devices and online activity such as social media and fairness of data trading. Finally, informed consent is one of the various elements that contribute to conducting ethical research. More needs to be done to strengthen governance and ensure adequate protection of research participants, particularly to address issues related to predictive health analytics.
在本文中,我们探讨了人们考虑同意或不同意某项内容的原因。本文介绍了日内瓦大学与日内瓦大学附属医院合作开展的公民论坛研究的结果,旨在探讨公众对预测肿瘤学、基因测序和癌症的意见和关注点。
本文呈现了公民论坛的结果,该论坛包括 73 名参与者。为这项研究设计了一个名为“同意机制”的研究工具。该工具是一个表格,鼓励参与者思考社会和研究参与者、数据类型以及在与不同参与者分享不同类型的数据时的期望控制水平。参与者完成每个表格的讨论内容被录音、转录,并使用主题分析进行分析。
结果是同意机制工具的回复汇总,分为两部分;第一部分呈现了对同意捐赠数据的态度的集体回复的定量结果。第二部分呈现了参与者讨论中出现的定性发现。
个人数据的选择和控制对于公众能够决定信任谁以及如何信任至关重要。向潜在研究参与者披露的关键信息应包括有关潜在风险和利益的信息;谁将访问和使用他们的数据;以及保证他们的选择将得到尊重。此外,研究人员应通过以称职、可靠和诚实的方式行事来确保自己值得信赖。治理系统应更好地应对由非传统研究参与者的日益增加、通过数字设备和在线活动(如社交媒体)交换数据的同意以及数据交易的公平性所引发的伦理问题。最后,知情同意是进行伦理研究的诸多要素之一。需要做更多的工作来加强治理,确保研究参与者得到充分保护,特别是要解决与预测健康分析相关的问题。