This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Neonatology and Infant Care  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Genetics  • Genetic Counseling/ Testing/ Therapy  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Aaron Hamvas, MD; Katherine K. Madden, RN; Lawrence M. Nogee, MD; Michelle A. Trusgnich, BS; Daniel J. Wegner, BS; Hillary B. Heins, BS; F. Sessions Cole, MD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158:551-555.

Background  Rapid technological advances in genetic research and public concern about genetic discrimination have led to anticipatory safeguards in the informed consent process in the absence of legal examples of proven discrimination. Despite federal and state regulations to restrict access to personal health information, including genetic information, institutional review boards have required the addition of language to informed consent documents that warns about the risks of discrimination with participation in genetic research.

Objective  To determine the reasons that families refused consent for their infant's participation in a study evaluating a genetic cause of respiratory distress syndrome.

Design  Survey conducted between February 1, 2002, and March 31, 2003.

Setting  Academic, tertiary free-standing children's hospital.

Participants  A convenience sample of 465 families were approached for consent. The 135 families who refused consent were surveyed.

Main Outcome Measures  Reasons for refusal.

Results  Of the nonconsenting families, 79% spontaneously and specifically identified institutionally required language in our consent form concerning the risk of denial of access to health insurance and employment as the primary reason for refusal; 97% indicated that their fears resulted directly from language in our consent form. Only 20% of families who refused consent cited inadequate time to consider the study.

Conclusions  The institutionally required description of risk of genetic discrimination due solely to participation in genetic research was the primary reason for refusal to consent in this cohort. Information about federally and institutionally mandated protections for confidentiality of participants in genetic research should be included in the informed consent document to balance the description of hypothetical risks and more accurately inform subjects.

From the Edward Mallinckrodt Department of Pediatrics, Division of Newborn Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine and St Louis Children's Hospital, St Louis, Mo (Drs Hamvas and Cole, Mss Madden, Trusgnich, and Heins, and Mr Wegner); and the Department of Pediatrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (Dr Nogee).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Stroke Genetic Research and Adults With Impaired Decision-Making Capacity: A Survey of IRB and Investigator Practices
Chen et al.
Stroke 2008;39:2732-2735.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Privacy and Equality in Diagnostic Genetic Testing
Nyrhinen et al.
Nurs Ethics 2007;14:295-308.
ABSTRACT  

Perceptions of potential donors in the Swedish public towards information and consent procedures in relation to use of human tissue samples in biobanks: A population-based study
Kettis-Lindblad et al.
Scand J Public Health 2007;35:148-156.
ABSTRACT  

Public Willingness to Participate in and Public Opinions About Genetic Variation Research: A Review of the Literature
Sterling et al.
AJPH 2006;96:1971-1978.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think?
Kettis-Lindblad et al.
Eur J Public Health 2006;16:433-440.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT