IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/63278.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Towards 'engagement 2.0': insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants

Author

Listed:
  • Teare, Harriet
  • Morrison, M.
  • Whitley, Edgar A.
  • Kaye, Jane

Abstract

Web 2.0 technologies have enabled new methods of engagement, moving from static mono-directional sources of information to interactive user-led experiences. Use of Web 2.0 technologies for engagement is gaining momentum within the health sector however this is still in its infancy in biobanking research. This paper reports on findings from focus groups with biobank participants to gauge their views on a Web 2.0 dynamic consent interface. The findings from this study suggest that participants would welcome more interactive engagement with biobanks, and the opportunity to hear more about how their data and samples are being used in research. We propose that by adopting Web 2.0 tools for dynamic consent, we can move towards an ‘Engagement 2.0’ model whereby research participants have the opportunity for more interactive engagement with medical research, setting up a two-way communication channel between participants and researchers, for the benefit of both.

Suggested Citation

  • Teare, Harriet & Morrison, M. & Whitley, Edgar A. & Kaye, Jane, 2015. "Towards 'engagement 2.0': insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63278, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:63278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63278/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. O'Doherty, Kieran C. & Hawkins, Alice K. & Burgess, Michael M., 2012. "Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: Informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(9), pages 1604-1611.
    2. Petrini, Carlo, 2010. ""Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 217-220, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yann Joly & Gratien Dalpé & Derek So & Stanislav Birko, 2015. "Fair Shares and Sharing Fairly: A Survey of Public Views on Open Science, Informed Consent and Participatory Research in Biobanking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Kieran C. O’Doherty & Michael K. MacKenzie & Dan Badulescu & Michael M. Burgess, 2013. "Explosives, Genomics, and the Environment," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(1), pages 21582440134, March.
    3. Baumann, Lisa Ann & Reinhold, Anna Katharina & Brütt, Anna Levke, 2022. "Public and patient involvement in health policy decision-making on the health system level – A scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(10), pages 1023-1038.
    4. Noor A A Giesbertz & Annelien L Bredenoord & Johannes J M van Delden, 2012. "Inclusion of Residual Tissue in Biobanks: Opt-In or Opt-Out?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-6, August.
    5. Regier, Dean A. & Bentley, Colene & Mitton, Craig & Bryan, Stirling & Burgess, Michael M. & Chesney, Ellen & Coldman, Andy & Gibson, Jennifer & Hoch, Jeffrey & Rahman, Syed & Sabharwal, Mona & Sawka, , 2014. "Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-139.
    6. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Nicol, Dianne & Critchley, Christine & McWhirter, Rebekah & Whitton, Tess, 2016. "Understanding public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and use of biobank resources," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 79-87.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:63278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

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

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