4.6 Article

The role of race and trust in tissue/blood donation for genetic research

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 116-121

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181cd6689

关键词

trust; research participation; biologic samples; genetics

资金

  1. NIH [R01 HG002830-02]
  2. NIH/NHGRI [P50 HG004488]
  3. NIH/NCRR [U54RR024383]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Public willingness to donate tissue samples is critical to genetic research. Prior work has linked minority status and mistrust with less willingness to provide specimens. Some have suggested recruitment of prior research participants to address these barriers. We present data from a genetic epidemiology study with a request for blood and/or saliva specimens to (1) measure willingness to donate tissue/blood samples, (2) identify demographic, trust, and other factors associated with willingness to donate samples, and (3) measure willingness to participate in future genetic research. Methods: We surveyed participants in the North Carolina Colorectal Cancer Study, which included biologic sample collection from consenting participants. Participants were later asked about sample provision; trust in researchers, and future research participation. Results: African Americans were less likely to give a blood sample, when compared with whites (21% vs. 13%, P < 0.05). After controlling for trust, this difference was no longer statistically significant (17% vs. 13%, P = 0.27). Those who had given samples were more likely to express willingness to participate in future research. Conclusion: Despite prior participation in a genetic epidemiology study, factors associated with provision of tissue samples reflected many previously identified demographic factors (race and trust). Interventions to improve and demonstrate the trustworthiness of the research team and recruitment of subjects with a record of sample donation might enhance future study participation. Genet Med 2010:12(2):116-121.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据