"My Blood, You Know, My Biology Being out There…": Consent and Participant Control of Biological Samples.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Susan Racine Passmore, Abigail Gerbitz, Gregory R Hancock, Laura Evans, Gina Green-Harris, Dorothy Farrar Edwards, Tyson Jackson, Stephen B Thomas
{"title":"\"My Blood, You Know, My Biology Being out There…\": Consent and Participant Control of Biological Samples.","authors":"Susan Racine Passmore, Abigail Gerbitz, Gregory R Hancock, Laura Evans, Gina Green-Harris, Dorothy Farrar Edwards, Tyson Jackson, Stephen B Thomas","doi":"10.1177/15562646231222665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The widespread and persistent underrepresentation of groups experiencing health disparities in research involving biospecimens is a barrier to scientific knowledge and advances in health equity. To ensure that all groups have the opportunity to participate in research and feel welcome and safe doing so, we must understand how research studies may be shaped to promote inclusion. In this study, we explored the decision to participate in hypothetical research scenarios among African American adults (n = 169) that varied on the basis of four attributes (form of consent, reason for research, institutional affiliation and race of the researcher). Findings indicate that participants were largely willing to contribute to biobanks but significantly preferred opportunities where they had control over the use of their biological samples through tiered or study-specific forms of consent. Broad consent procedures, although common and perhaps preferred by participants with high trust in researchers, may amount to an exclusionary practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10957312/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231222665","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The widespread and persistent underrepresentation of groups experiencing health disparities in research involving biospecimens is a barrier to scientific knowledge and advances in health equity. To ensure that all groups have the opportunity to participate in research and feel welcome and safe doing so, we must understand how research studies may be shaped to promote inclusion. In this study, we explored the decision to participate in hypothetical research scenarios among African American adults (n = 169) that varied on the basis of four attributes (form of consent, reason for research, institutional affiliation and race of the researcher). Findings indicate that participants were largely willing to contribute to biobanks but significantly preferred opportunities where they had control over the use of their biological samples through tiered or study-specific forms of consent. Broad consent procedures, although common and perhaps preferred by participants with high trust in researchers, may amount to an exclusionary practice.

"我的血液,我的生物体......":生物样本的同意和参与者控制。
在涉及生物样本的研究中,存在健康差异的群体普遍且持续地代表性不足,这阻碍了科学知识的发展和健康公平的进步。为了确保所有群体都有机会参与研究,并在参与过程中感到受欢迎和安全,我们必须了解如何开展研究以促进包容性。在本研究中,我们探讨了非裔美国成年人(n = 169)参与假设研究情景的决定,这些情景因四个属性(同意形式、研究原因、机构隶属关系和研究者的种族)而异。研究结果表明,参与者基本上都愿意为生物库做出贡献,但他们更倾向于通过分级或特定研究的同意形式来控制其生物样本的使用。虽然广泛的同意程序很常见,而且可能是对研究人员高度信任的参与者的首选,但这可能是一种排斥性做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信