IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0118027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Consent Preferences of UK Research Volunteers for Genetic and Clinical Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Susan E Kelly
  • Timothy D Spector
  • Lynn F Cherkas
  • Barbara Prainsack
  • Juliette M Harris

Abstract

Objectives: To establish the views of research volunteers on the consent process; to explore their views on the consent process in different research scenarios; to inform debate on emerging models of consent for participation in research. Design, Setting and Participants: 2,308 adult volunteers from the TwinsUK Registry (www.twinsuk.ac.uk) completed an online survey about their views on the consent process for use of their DNA and medical information in research. Their views on the re-consenting process in different scenarios were assessed. Results: The majority of volunteers preferred to be informed of the identity of the main researcher of a study in which they are participating, which is contrary to current practice. Over 80% were willing to complete the consent process online instead of face to face. On the whole, respondents did not view their DNA differently from their medical information with regard to the consent process. Research participants were more willing to give broad consent to cover future research if their DNA was to be used by the original researcher than by another researcher, even if the disease under investigation varied, in contrast to the traditional ‘gold standard’ whereby specific consent is required for all new research projects. Discussion: In some scenarios, research participants reported that they would be comfortable with not signing a new consent form for future research uses of their data and DNA, and are comfortable with secure, online consent processes rather than traditional face-to-face consent processes. Our findings indicate that the perceived relationship between research participants and researchers plays an important role in shaping preferences regarding the consent process and suggest that this relationship is not captured by traditional consent processes. We argue that the development of new formats of consent should be informed by empirical research on volunteers’ perceptions and preferences regarding the consent process.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan E Kelly & Timothy D Spector & Lynn F Cherkas & Barbara Prainsack & Juliette M Harris, 2015. "Evaluating the Consent Preferences of UK Research Volunteers for Genetic and Clinical Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0118027
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118027
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118027&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0118027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0118027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.