Evaluating the Consent Preferences of UK Research Volunteers for Genetic and Clinical Studies
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. 2,308 adult volunteers from the TwinsUK Registry (www.twinsuk.ac.uk) comp...
Saved in:
Published in | PloS one Vol. 10; no. 3; p. e0118027 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Public Library of Science
11.03.2015
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0118027 |
Cover
Abstract | 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.
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.
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.
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. |
---|---|
AbstractList | 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.OBJECTIVESTo 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.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.DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS2,308 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.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.RESULTSThe 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.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.DISCUSSIONIn 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
Audience | Academic |
Author | Cherkas, Lynn F. Spector, Timothy D. Prainsack, Barbara Kelly, Susan E. Harris, Juliette M. |
AuthorAffiliation | 1 Centre for the Study of Life Sciences (Egenis), University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom Cardiff University, UNITED KINGDOM 3 Department of Social Science, Health & Medicine, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom 2 Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom |
AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 2 Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom – name: 3 Department of Social Science, Health & Medicine, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom – name: 1 Centre for the Study of Life Sciences (Egenis), University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom – name: Cardiff University, UNITED KINGDOM |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Susan E. surname: Kelly fullname: Kelly, Susan E. – sequence: 2 givenname: Timothy D. surname: Spector fullname: Spector, Timothy D. – sequence: 3 givenname: Lynn F. surname: Cherkas fullname: Cherkas, Lynn F. – sequence: 4 givenname: Barbara surname: Prainsack fullname: Prainsack, Barbara – sequence: 5 givenname: Juliette M. surname: Harris fullname: Harris, Juliette M. |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25761107$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNqNk29v0zAQxiM0xLbCN0AQCQnBixb_i9PwAmmqxqiYNLSxvUOWa19aT65dbGeCb4-7tqiZJoTyIvHld8_lLs8dFwfOOyiKlxiNMK3xh1vfBSftaJXDI4TxGJH6SXGEG0qGnCB6sPd8WBzHeItQRcecPysOSVVzjFF9VPw4vZO2k8m4eZkWUE68i-BS-S1ACwGcglj6trz-Wl5CBBnUorzxtnMJIMSy9aE8AwfJqFI6XU6scUZJW16lThuIz4unrbQRXmzvg-L68-n3yZfh-cXZdHJyPlS8pvWQKElxgwhjGppZBZpWmCPZKkJIM9NtBRQTQEhjRYnCLVFUMaiQGitMKEg6KF5vdFfWR7GdTBSYc8IIrxqWiemG0F7eilUwSxl-Cy-NuA_4MBcy5DYsCK1ZXde5MueUyQrLZiZb3VDdMiXzOWt92lbrZkvQKs8rSNsT7b9xZiHm_k4wWvEq_5RB8W4rEPzPDmISSxMVWCsd-O7-uymvakp5Rt88QB_vbkvNZW7AuNbnumotKk4YGWcbNGxddvQIlS8NS6OyjVqT472E972EzCT4leayi1FMry7_n7246bNv99gFSJsWMbsqmey-Pvhqf9J_R7zzbwY-bgAVfIzZs0KZJNc6uTVjBUZivSy7oYn1sojtsuRk9iB5p__PtD_tTxes |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1007_s11948_022_00398_x crossref_primary_10_1093_tbm_ibx056 crossref_primary_10_1177_1477750917704156 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00439_019_02062_0 crossref_primary_10_1177_2053951716688490 crossref_primary_10_1080_15265161_2019_1572822 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejmg_2018_11_024 crossref_primary_10_1111_1467_9566_12818 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_017_0182_0 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41431_020_0585_0 crossref_primary_10_1080_10810730_2016_1193914 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_10531_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_060844 crossref_primary_10_1177_1556264619887073 crossref_primary_10_1136_medethics_2016_103654 crossref_primary_10_1586_14737159_2015_1053467 crossref_primary_10_1177_1747016120914331 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40246_018_0139_5 crossref_primary_10_1111_1467_9566_12584 crossref_primary_10_1080_15265161_2021_1891338 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12687_020_00479_z crossref_primary_10_1080_18340806_2015_1222645 crossref_primary_10_1093_jamia_ocw115 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12687_015_0259_8 crossref_primary_10_1159_000447346 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00481_016_0398_4 crossref_primary_10_1159_000452094 crossref_primary_10_1177_2055207615605644 crossref_primary_10_1038_nbt_3887 |
Cites_doi | 10.1038/nrg2360 10.2105/AJPH.2008.157099 10.1007/s12687-013-0146-0 10.1136/bmj.332.7540.544 10.1159/000262329 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x 10.1038/ejhg.2013.217 10.1159/000336673 10.1159/000336544 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01749.x 10.1038/gim.2013.59 10.2307/3528467 10.1186/1472-6939-4-1 10.1038/nature.2012.10507 10.1001/archinte.165.1.97 10.1017/thg.2012.89 10.1126/science.1249382 10.1093/medlaw/fws040 10.1080/1463677032000147199 10.1080/14034940310019506 10.1001/jama.292.13.1593 10.1038/456032a 10.1093/phe/phr020 10.5661/bger-25-429 10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.04.007 10.1375/twin.9.6.899 10.1038/ejhg.2013.290 10.1089/bio.2013.0083 10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141711 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70618-0 10.1186/gb-2012-13-5-158 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821d2f88 10.1007/s11019-005-5067-1 10.1375/1369052012803 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | COPYRIGHT 2015 Public Library of Science 2015 Kelly et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. 2015 Kelly et al 2015 Kelly et al |
Copyright_xml | – notice: COPYRIGHT 2015 Public Library of Science – notice: 2015 Kelly et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: 2015 Kelly et al 2015 Kelly et al |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM IOV ISR 3V. 7QG 7QL 7QO 7RV 7SN 7SS 7T5 7TG 7TM 7U9 7X2 7X7 7XB 88E 8AO 8C1 8FD 8FE 8FG 8FH 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABJCF ABUWG AEUYN AFKRA ARAPS ATCPS AZQEC BBNVY BENPR BGLVJ BHPHI C1K CCPQU D1I DWQXO FR3 FYUFA GHDGH GNUQQ H94 HCIFZ K9. KB. KB0 KL. L6V LK8 M0K M0S M1P M7N M7P M7S NAPCQ P5Z P62 P64 PATMY PDBOC PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS PTHSS PYCSY RC3 7X8 5PM DOA |
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0118027 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Gale In Context: Science ProQuest Central (Corporate) Animal Behavior Abstracts Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B) Biotechnology Research Abstracts Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source Ecology Abstracts Entomology Abstracts (Full archive) Immunology Abstracts Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts Nucleic Acids Abstracts Virology and AIDS Abstracts Agricultural Science Collection Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Pharma Collection Public Health Database Technology Research Database ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Technology Collection ProQuest Natural Science Collection Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Materials Science & Engineering ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest One Sustainability ProQuest Central UK/Ireland Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection ProQuest Central Essentials Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central Technology collection Natural Science Collection Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest One ProQuest Materials Science Collection ProQuest Central Engineering Research Database Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central Student AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Materials Science Database Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition) Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic ProQuest Engineering Collection Biological Sciences Agricultural Science Database ProQuest Health & Medical Collection Medical Database Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) Biological Science Database Engineering Database Nursing & Allied Health Premium Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts Environmental Science Database Materials Science Collection ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Publicly Available Content ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China Engineering Collection Environmental Science Collection Genetics Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Agricultural Science Database Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Central Student ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection ProQuest Central Essentials Nucleic Acids Abstracts SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest Central China Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Sustainability Health Research Premium Collection Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts Natural Science Collection Health & Medical Research Collection Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) Engineering Collection Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection Engineering Database Virology and AIDS Abstracts ProQuest Biological Science Collection ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition Agricultural Science Collection ProQuest Hospital Collection ProQuest Technology Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) Biological Science Database Ecology Abstracts ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts Environmental Science Collection Entomology Abstracts Nursing & Allied Health Premium ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Environmental Science Database ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source (Alumni) Engineering Research Database ProQuest One Academic Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) Technology Collection Technology Research Database ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) Materials Science Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Natural Science Collection ProQuest Pharma Collection ProQuest Central ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Genetics Abstracts ProQuest Engineering Collection Biotechnology Research Abstracts Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Korea Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B) Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts Materials Science Database ProQuest Materials Science Collection ProQuest Public Health ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source ProQuest SciTech Collection Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database ProQuest Medical Library Animal Behavior Abstracts Materials Science & Engineering Collection Immunology Abstracts ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic Agricultural Science Database MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 4 dbid: 8FG name: ProQuest Technology Collection url: https://search.proquest.com/technologycollection1 sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Sciences (General) Public Health |
DocumentTitleAlternate | Consent preference of UK Research Volunteers |
EISSN | 1932-6203 |
ExternalDocumentID | 1662426594 oai_doaj_org_article_dd47772296634a51a9bafd93df4caa51 PMC4356519 3621517301 A428932949 25761107 10_1371_journal_pone_0118027 |
Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article |
GeographicLocations | United Kingdom United Kingdom--UK |
GeographicLocations_xml | – name: United Kingdom – name: United Kingdom--UK |
GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Wellcome Trust |
GroupedDBID | --- 123 29O 2WC 53G 5VS 7RV 7X2 7X7 7XC 88E 8AO 8C1 8CJ 8FE 8FG 8FH 8FI 8FJ A8Z AAFWJ AAUCC AAWOE AAYXX ABDBF ABIVO ABJCF ABUWG ACGFO ACIHN ACIWK ACPRK ACUHS ADBBV ADRAZ AEAQA AENEX AEUYN AFKRA AFPKN AFRAH AHMBA ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AOIJS APEBS ARAPS ATCPS BAWUL BBNVY BCNDV BENPR BGLVJ BHPHI BKEYQ BPHCQ BVXVI BWKFM CCPQU CITATION CS3 D1I D1J D1K DIK DU5 E3Z EAP EAS EBD EMOBN ESX EX3 F5P FPL FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HCIFZ HH5 HMCUK HYE IAO IEA IGS IHR IHW INH INR IOV IPY ISE ISR ITC K6- KB. KQ8 L6V LK5 LK8 M0K M1P M48 M7P M7R M7S M~E NAPCQ O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P P62 PATMY PDBOC PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PTHSS PV9 PYCSY RNS RPM RZL SV3 TR2 UKHRP WOQ WOW ~02 ~KM CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF IPNFZ NPM PJZUB PPXIY PQGLB RIG BBORY PMFND 3V. 7QG 7QL 7QO 7SN 7SS 7T5 7TG 7TM 7U9 7XB 8FD 8FK AZQEC C1K DWQXO FR3 GNUQQ H94 K9. KL. M7N P64 PKEHL PQEST PQUKI PRINS RC3 7X8 ESTFP PUEGO 5PM - 02 AAPBV ABPTK ADACO BBAFP KM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c6737-2ca3190244de9b5ed35160afc2229bdf5e312e00d1c32c1f2c3c4e50c8c123ea3 |
IEDL.DBID | M48 |
ISSN | 1932-6203 |
IngestDate | Fri Nov 26 17:12:54 EST 2021 Wed Aug 27 01:27:43 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 17:54:09 EDT 2025 Mon Sep 08 11:15:59 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 10:48:53 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 20:42:57 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 10 20:38:55 EDT 2025 Fri Jun 27 03:54:51 EDT 2025 Fri Jun 27 03:58:25 EDT 2025 Thu May 22 21:01:34 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:05:44 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:00:13 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 00:20:11 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 3 |
Language | English |
License | This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. Creative Commons Attribution License |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c6737-2ca3190244de9b5ed35160afc2229bdf5e312e00d1c32c1f2c3c4e50c8c123ea3 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Conceived and designed the experiments: SK BP TS LC JH. Analyzed the data: SK BP TS LC JH. Wrote the paper: SK BP TS LC JH. |
OpenAccessLink | http://journals.scholarsportal.info/openUrl.xqy?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0118027 |
PMID | 25761107 |
PQID | 1662426594 |
PQPubID | 1436336 |
ParticipantIDs | plos_journals_1662426594 doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_dd47772296634a51a9bafd93df4caa51 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4356519 proquest_miscellaneous_1663657336 proquest_journals_1662426594 gale_infotracmisc_A428932949 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A428932949 gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A428932949 gale_incontextgauss_IOV_A428932949 gale_healthsolutions_A428932949 pubmed_primary_25761107 crossref_citationtrail_10_1371_journal_pone_0118027 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0118027 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2015-03-11 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2015-03-11 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 2015 text: 2015-03-11 day: 11 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: San Francisco – name: San Francisco, CA USA |
PublicationTitle | PloS one |
PublicationTitleAlternate | PLoS One |
PublicationYear | 2015 |
Publisher | Public Library of Science Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
Publisher_xml | – name: Public Library of Science – name: Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
References | D Wendler (ref37) 2006; 332 J Flory (ref40) 2004; 292 J Murphy (ref30) 2009; 99 K Hoeyer (ref23) 2003; 22 P Taylor (ref18) 2008; 456 A Moayyeri (ref34) 2013; 16 AK Rahm (ref32) 2013; 4 ref1 ref39 K Hoeyer (ref25) 2006; 9 J Viberg (ref11) 2014; 22 JE Lunshof (ref12) 2014; 343 J Platt (ref29) 2014; 16 TD Spector (ref33) 2006; 9 S Wolf (ref8) 2008; 36 K Hoeyer (ref24) 2008; 25 J Kotz (ref19) 2012; 5 E Whitley (ref3) 2012; 15 J Murphy (ref13) 2008; 8 ref20 R Tutton (ref28) 2004; 22 ref41 AL McGuire (ref4) 2010; 11 T Caulfield (ref6) 2003; 4 M Sheehan (ref15) 2011; 4 K Hoeyer (ref26) 2004; 32 (ref10) 2013 NC Manson (ref43) 2007; 1 ES Dove (ref21) 2012; 13 BM Knoppers (ref5) 2006; 4 ref7 MG Hansson (ref38) 2006; 7 ref9 JE Lunshof (ref14) 2008; 9 K Hoeyer (ref27) 2005; 165 NE Kass (ref44) 1996; 26 J Allen (ref16) 2011; 25 K Hoeyer (ref22) 2010; 13 CM Simon (ref31) 2011; 13 T Andrew (ref35) 2001; 4 KL Braun (ref42) 2014; 12 MJ Murtagh (ref2) 2012; 15 (ref36) 2007 B Prainsack (ref17) 2013; 21 |
References_xml | – ident: ref1 – volume: 9 start-page: 406 issue: 5 year: 2008 ident: ref14 article-title: From genetic privacy to open consent publication-title: Nat Rev Genet doi: 10.1038/nrg2360 – year: 2007 ident: ref36 article-title: Stata Statistical Software: Release 10 – ident: ref39 – volume: 99 start-page: 2128 issue: 12 year: 2009 ident: ref30 article-title: Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking publication-title: Am J Public Health doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.157099 – volume: 4 start-page: 445 issue: 4 year: 2013 ident: ref32 article-title: Biobanking for research: A survey of patient population attitudes and understanding publication-title: J Community Genet doi: 10.1007/s12687-013-0146-0 – volume: 332 start-page: 544 year: 2006 ident: ref37 article-title: One-time general consent for research on biological samples publication-title: BMJ doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7540.544 – ident: ref20 – ident: ref41 – volume: 13 start-page: 345 issue: 6 year: 2010 ident: ref22 article-title: Donors perceptions of consent to and feedback from biobank research: Time to acknowledge diversity? publication-title: Public Health Genomics doi: 10.1159/000262329 – volume: 36 start-page: 219 issue: 3 year: 2008 ident: ref8 article-title: Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: Analysis and recommendations publication-title: J Law Med Ethics doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x – volume: 22 start-page: 437 year: 2014 ident: ref11 article-title: Incidental findings: the time is not yet ripe for a policy for biobanks publication-title: Eur J Hum Genet doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.217 – volume: 15 start-page: 243 year: 2012 ident: ref2 article-title: Securing the data economy: Translating privacy and enacting security in the development of DataSHIELD publication-title: Public Health Genomi doi: 10.1159/000336673 – volume: 15 start-page: 232 issue: 5 year: 2012 ident: ref3 article-title: Consent and research governance in biobanks: evidence from focus groups with medical researchers publication-title: Public Health Genomi doi: 10.1159/000336544 – volume: 25 start-page: 155 issue: 3 year: 2011 ident: ref16 article-title: Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research publication-title: Bioethics doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01749.x – volume: 16 start-page: 11 issue: 1 year: 2014 ident: ref29 article-title: Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research publication-title: Genet Med doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.59 – volume: 26 start-page: 25 issue: 5 year: 1996 ident: ref44 article-title: Trust: The Fragile Foundation of Contemporary Biomedical Research publication-title: Hastings Cent Rep doi: 10.2307/3528467 – volume: 1 year: 2007 ident: ref43 – volume: 4 start-page: E1 year: 2003 ident: ref6 article-title: DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorisation model publication-title: BMC Med Ethics doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-4-1 – ident: ref7 doi: 10.1038/nature.2012.10507 – volume: 165 start-page: 97 issue: 1 year: 2005 ident: ref27 article-title: The ethics of research using biobanks: Reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent publication-title: Arch Intern Med doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.1.97 – volume: 16 start-page: 144 issue: 1 year: 2013 ident: ref34 article-title: The UK Adult Twin Registry (TwinsUK Resource) publication-title: Twin Res Hum Genet doi: 10.1017/thg.2012.89 – volume: 343 start-page: 373 issue: 6169 year: 2014 ident: ref12 article-title: Raw Personal Data: Providing Access publication-title: Science doi: 10.1126/science.1249382 – volume: 21 start-page: 71 issue: 1 year: 2013 ident: ref17 article-title: A solidarity-based approach to the governance of research biobanks publication-title: Med Law Rev doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fws040 – volume: 22 start-page: 229 issue: 3 year: 2003 ident: ref23 article-title: 'Science is really needed—that's all I know': Informed consent and the non-verbal practices of collecting blood for genetic research in northern Sweden publication-title: New Genet Soc doi: 10.1080/1463677032000147199 – volume: 32 start-page: 224 issue: 3 year: 2004 ident: ref26 article-title: Informed consent and biobanks: A population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research publication-title: Scand J Public Health doi: 10.1080/14034940310019506 – volume: 5 issue: 25 year: 2012 ident: ref19 article-title: Bringing patient data into the open publication-title: SciBX – volume: 292 start-page: 1593 issue: 13 year: 2004 ident: ref40 article-title: Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding of informed consent for research: a systematic review publication-title: JAMA doi: 10.1001/jama.292.13.1593 – volume: 456 start-page: 32 year: 2008 ident: ref18 article-title: Personal Genomes: When Consent Gets in the Way publication-title: Nature doi: 10.1038/456032a – volume: 4 start-page: 226 issue: 3 year: 2011 ident: ref15 article-title: Can broad consent be informed consent? publication-title: Public Health Ethics doi: 10.1093/phe/phr020 – volume: 25 start-page: 429 year: 2008 ident: ref24 article-title: The ethics of research biobanking: A critical review of the literature publication-title: Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev doi: 10.5661/bger-25-429 – volume: 22 start-page: 284 issue: 6 year: 2004 ident: ref28 article-title: Governing UK biobank: The importance of ensuring public trust publication-title: Trends Biotechnol doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.04.007 – volume: 9 start-page: 899 year: 2006 ident: ref33 article-title: The UK Adult Twin Registry (TwinsUK) publication-title: Twin Res Hum Genet doi: 10.1375/twin.9.6.899 – ident: ref9 doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.290 – volume: 12 start-page: 106 issue: 2 year: 2014 ident: ref42 article-title: Cancer patient perceptions about biobanking and preferred timing of consent publication-title: Biopreserv Biobank doi: 10.1089/bio.2013.0083 – volume: 8 start-page: 36 issue: 11 year: 2008 ident: ref13 article-title: Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research publication-title: AJOB – volume: 11 start-page: 361 year: 2010 ident: ref4 article-title: Informed consent in genomics and genetics research publication-title: Annu Rev Genomics Hum Gen doi: 10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141711 – volume: 4 start-page: 416 year: 2006 ident: ref5 article-title: Human genetic research: Emerging trends in ethics publication-title: FOCUS 2006 – volume: 7 start-page: 266 year: 2006 ident: ref38 article-title: Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? publication-title: Lancet Oncol doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70618-0 – volume: 13 start-page: 158 year: 2012 ident: ref21 article-title: Power to the people: a wiki-governance model for biobanks publication-title: Genome Biology doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-5-158 – year: 2013 ident: ref10 article-title: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts – volume: 13 start-page: 821 issue: 9 year: 2011 ident: ref31 article-title: Active choice but not too active: Public perspectives on biobank consent models (Review) publication-title: Genet Med doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821d2f88 – volume: 9 start-page: 13 issue: 1 year: 2006 ident: ref25 article-title: Motivating donors to genetic research? anthropological reasons to rethink the role of informed consent publication-title: Med Health Care Philos doi: 10.1007/s11019-005-5067-1 – volume: 4 start-page: 464 year: 2001 ident: ref35 article-title: Are twins and singletons comparable? A study of disease-related and lifestyle characteristics in adult women publication-title: Twin Res doi: 10.1375/1369052012803 |
SSID | ssj0053866 |
Score | 2.3158228 |
Snippet | 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... Objectives To establish the views of research volunteers on the consent process; to explore their views on the consent process in different research scenarios;... Objectives To establish the views of research volunteers on the consent process; to explore their views on the consent process in different research scenarios;... |
SourceID | plos doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref |
SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
StartPage | e0118027 |
SubjectTerms | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Bioethics Biomedical research Biomedical Research - ethics Clinical trials Datasets Deoxyribonucleic acid DNA Epidemiology Female Genetic research Healthy Volunteers - psychology Humans Informed consent Informed Consent - psychology Internet Male Management Medical information management services Medical research Middle Aged Public health Research Personnel Research projects Studies Surveys and Questionnaires United Kingdom Young Adult |
SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwELbQnrggyquhBQxCAg5pE7-yORbUqoAACVjUC7L8bJGqZEV2_z8ziRM1qFI5cF1Pouw8PJ-TmW8IeakiZ6aIy9xAbsrFUtjcKKdyxWwUtRdVEfA95KfP6nQlPpzJsyujvrAmbKAHHhR36EEeECADWM6FkaWprYm-5j4KZ0zfPM2KuhgPU8MeDFGsVGqU41V5mOxysG6bcDCwnlWzRNTz9U-78mJ92XbXQc6_KyevpKKTu-ROwpD0aHj2HXIrNPfITorSjr5OVNJv7pOfx4nMuzmngPSow9rpZkPX03SRjraRrj7SRPpzQXG7AmUDKqSAZyn4F7Y5UtN4OnZR0m4oPnxAVifH39-d5mmgQu5wHE3OnIGIg6wsfKitDJ7LUhUmOhzqbX2UgZcsFIUvHWeujMxxJ4Is3NJBgguGPySLBlS4S6gqvbDW8iqCTZ2ShgXPeBWWLEhno8wIH7WrXWIbx6EXl7r_hFbBqWNQlkab6GSTjOTTVeuBbeMG-bdouEkWubL7H8CDdPIgfZMHZeQZml0PjadTxOsjOJkBuq1FnZEXvQTyZTRYkHNutl2n33_58Q9C377OhF4lodiCOpxJTRDwn5CHaya5P5OEqHez5V100lErnS4VdvooWQu4cnTc65efT8t4Uyyya0K77WW46vkxM_Jo8PNJs3guxVcFGalmETBT_Xyl-XXR05UDIFdwTnj8P2y1R24DYpVYBFiW-2Sx-b0NTwAVbuzTfgP4A-SdYhE priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: ProQuest Central dbid: BENPR link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1Lb9NAEF6V9IKEUFseNS1lQUjAwa3tfTg-oKpFqQqIUBVS9VJZ630EpMgOdfP_mbHXBqMKOCY7dpx57cx65htCXkrHEhW5cahgbwr5mBehklqGMikczwxPI4vnkJ-m8nTGP1yKyzUy7XphsKyy84mNozaVxjPyg1hiJ4MUGT9c_ghxahS-Xe1GaCg_WsG8bSDG7pB1cMkiGpH148n07LzzzWDdUvoGOpbGB15e-8uqtPstGlo62KAaHP_eW4-Wi6q-LRT9s6Lyty3qZIPc97ElPWqVYZOs2XKL3GsP5mjbb7RFNr011_S1h5x-84BcTTzodzmnEBFSHOMJv0HP-ikkNa0cnX2kXaUevQCdBaFA9Egh7qV4L_hZqkpDPdbogvoixYdkdjL5-u409IMXQo1ja8JEK7BM2L25sVkhrGEilpFyGod_F8YJy-LERpGJNUt07BLNNLci0mMNG6FV7BEZlcDSbUJlbHhRFCx1IHsthUqsSVhqx4kVunAiIKzjdq49KjkOx1jkzau2FLKTlnk5yij3MgpI2F-1bFE5_kF_jILsaRFTu_miup7n3kRzA5oJuUYCCSDjSsQqK5QzGTPw4Ao-B-QZqkHeNqj2niE_ggwOouCMZwF50VAgrkaJhTtztarr_P3ni_8g-nI-IHrliVwF7NDKN0vAf0K8rgHl7oASvIMeLG-j0nZcqfNfdgRXdop8-_LzfhlvisV4pa1WDQ2TDY5mQB63et9zFvNXPFIISDqwiAHrhyvl928NrDkE7hLyiSd_f6wdchdiVoFlgHG8S0Y31yv7FOLCm2LPG_tPfG5jvQ priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
Title | Evaluating the Consent Preferences of UK Research Volunteers for Genetic and Clinical Studies |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25761107 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1662426594 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1663657336 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC4356519 https://doaj.org/article/dd47772296634a51a9bafd93df4caa51 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118027 |
Volume | 10 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV3db9MwELe27oUXxPhaYBSDkICHVEnsOM0DQtvUMkCMadCpL1PkOHZBqpLSrBL899w5TkRQEXuJ1Prspvdh39nn3xHyQhgWycCMfQlrk8_HPPelUMIXUW54WvAk0LgP-elMnM74h3k83yFtzVbHwHpraIf1pGbr5ejnj19vweDf2KoNSdh2Gq2qUo8aTLNkl-zZEyNM5uPduQJYtz29RK8FXidg7jLdv0bpLVYW07-buQerZVVvc0v_zq78Y7ma3iG3nZ9JjxrF2Cc7urxL9p0l1_SVg5t-fY9cTRzgd7mg4A1SLOEJY9LzrgJJTStDZx9pm6VHL0FfQSDgOVLweSmOBT9DZVlQhzO6pC5B8T6ZTSdfT059V3TBV1iyxo-UBKuElZsXOs1jXbA4FIE0Cgt_54WJNQsjHQRFqFikQhMppriOAzVWsAhqyR6QQQksPCBUhAXP85wlBuSuRCwjXUQs0eNIxyo3sUdYy91MOURyLIyxzOwxWwKRScOsDGWSOZl4xO96rRpEjv_QH6PgOlrE07ZfVOtF5swzK0ArIc6IIPhjXMahTHNpipQV8OISPnvkKYo9ay6ndrNCdgTRG-hSylOPPLcUiKlRYtLOQm7qOnv_-fIGRF8uekQvHZGpgB1KuosS8J8Qq6tHedijhJlB9ZoPUElbrtRZKPA2kIhTDj1bxd3e_KxrxkExEa_U1cbSMGExND3ysNHzjrMYu-J2gkeSngX0WN9vKb9_s5Dm4LQLiCUe3YSJj8kt8FpjTAQMw0MyuF5v9BPwDK_zIdlN5gk8xychPqfvhmTveHJ2fjG0ey1DOxn8BnETZxA |
linkProvider | Scholars Portal |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1fb9MwELdG9wASQmz8WWAwg0DAQ7bETpzmYUIbdFrpVqaxTntBwbGdglQlZVmF-HJ8Nu4SJxA0AS97bH1xkvPd-c65-x0hz0TGmfSyvithb3KDfpC6UijhCpZmQayDyDN4Dnk4FvuT4N1ZeLZEfjS1MJhW2djEylDrQuEZ-ZYvsJJBhHHwev7Vxa5R-HW1aaEhbWsFvV1BjNnCjpH5_g1CuHJ7-BbW-zlje4OTN_uu7TLgKuzR4jIlQQxhqwq0idPQaB76wpOZwk7Xqc5Cw31mPE_7ijPlZ0xxFZjQU30FVt9IDvNeI8sBHqD0yPLuYHx03OwFYE2EsAV7PPK3rHxszovcbNboa1FnQ6z6BrS7Q28-K8rLXN8_Mzh_2xL3bpNb1pelO7XwrZAlk6-Sm_VBIK3rm1bJirUeJX1pIa5f3SEfBxZkPJ9S8EAptg2Fe9CjtutJSYuMTka0yQykp6AjIATgrVLwsynOBbelMtfUYpvOqE2KvEsmV7IE90gvB5auESp8HaRpyqMMZE2JUDKjGY9Mn5lQpVnoEN5wO1EWBR2bccyS6tNeBNFQzbwE1yixa-QQt71qXqOA_IN-FxeypUUM7-qP4nyaWJOQaNAEiG0YBJw8kKEv41RmOuYaHlzCb4dsoBgkdUFsa4mSHYgYweuOg9ghTysKxPHIMVFoKhdlmQzfn_4H0YfjDtELS5QVwA4lbXEGvBPig3Uo1zuUYI1UZ3gNhbbhSpn80lu4shHky4eftMM4KSb_5aZYVDRcVLidDrlfy33LWYyX8QjDIVFHIzqs747kXz5XMOqgsQLilwd_f6wNcn3_5PAgORiORw_JDfCXQ0xB9P110rs4X5hH4JNepI-t4lPy6aptzU8Rv6BU |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3db9MwELdGJyEkhNj4WGEwg0DAQ9bETpzmYUIba7VSKNWg015QcGynIFVJWVYh_kX-Ku4SJxA0AS97bH1xkvP5Ppy73xHyRKScSTftOxJsk-P3_cSRQglHsCT1I-2HrsFzyLcTcTTzX58Gp2vkR10Lg2mVtU4sFbXOFZ6R9zyBlQwiiPxeatMipofDl8uvDnaQwi-tdTsNadss6L0SbswWeYzN928QzhV7o0NY-6eMDQcfXh05tuOAo7Bfi8OUBJEEs-VrEyWB0TzwhCtThV2vE50GhnvMuK72FGfKS5niyjeBq_oKLICRHOa9QtZDsPoQCK4fDCbT49ougGYRwhbv8dDrWVnZXeaZ2a2Q2MKWcSx7CDSWorNc5MVFbvCf2Zy_mcfhTXLD-rV0vxLEDbJmsk1yvToUpFWt0ybZsJqkoM8t3PWLW-TjwAKOZ3MK3ijFFqJwDzptOqAUNE_pbEzrLEF6AvsFBAI8Vwo-N8W54LZUZppanNMFtQmSt8nsUpbgDulkwNItQoWn_SRJeJiC3CkRSGY046HpMxOoJA26hNfcjpVFRMfGHIu4_MwXQmRUMS_GNYrtGnWJ01y1rBBB_kF_gAvZ0CKed_lHfjaPrXqINewKiHMYBJ_cl4Eno0SmOuIaHlzC7y7ZQTGIq-LYRivF-xA9ggce-VGXPC4pENMjw90xl6uiiEfvTv6D6P1xi-iZJUpzYIeStlAD3gmxwlqU2y1K0EyqNbyFQltzpYh_7WG4shbki4cfNcM4KSYCZiZflTRclBieXXK3kvuGsxg743FGl4StHdFifXsk-_K5hFSHoEFALHPv74-1Q66CzonfjCbj--QauM4BZiN63jbpnJ-tzANwT8-Th3bfU_LpslXNT9uZpJg |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating+the+Consent+Preferences+of+UK+Research+Volunteers+for+Genetic+and+Clinical+Studies&rft.jtitle=PloS+one&rft.au=Kelly%2C+Susan+E&rft.au=Spector%2C+Timothy+D&rft.au=Cherkas%2C+Lynn+F&rft.au=Prainsack%2C+Barbara&rft.date=2015-03-11&rft.pub=Public+Library+of+Science&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0118027&rft.externalDBID=IOV&rft.externalDocID=A428932949 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1932-6203&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1932-6203&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1932-6203&client=summon |