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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 10; no. 3; p. e0118027
Main Authors Kelly, Susan E., Spector, Timothy D., Cherkas, Lynn F., Prainsack, Barbara, Harris, Juliette M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 11.03.2015
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI10.1371/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