52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Community Engagement for Big Epidemiology: Deliberative Democracy as a Tool

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part of a wider program of community consultation regarding the potential development of a Tasmanian Biobank. Twenty-five Tasmanians of diverse backgrounds participated in two weekends of deliberation; involving elements of information gathering; discussion; identification of issues and formation of group resolutions. Participants demonstrated strong support for a Tasmanian Biobank and their deliberations resulted in specific proposals in relation to consent; privacy; return of results; governance; funding; and, commercialization and benefit sharing. They exhibited a high degree of satisfaction with the event, and confidence in the outcomes. Deliberative democracy methodology is a useful tool for community engagement that addresses some of the limitations of traditional consultation methods.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Biology: The big challenges of big data.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            DELIBERATIVEDEMOCRATICTHEORY

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

              Concerns about privacy may deter people from participating in genetic research. Recruitment and retention of biobank participants requires understanding the nature and magnitude of these concerns. Potential participants in a proposed biobank were asked about their willingness to participate, their privacy concerns, informed consent, and data sharing. A representative survey of 4659 U.S. adults was conducted. Ninety percent of respondents would be concerned about privacy, 56% would be concerned about researchers having their information, and 37% would worry that study data could be used against them. However, 60% would participate in the biobank if asked. Nearly half (48%) would prefer to provide consent once for all research approved by an oversight panel, whereas 42% would prefer to provide consent for each project separately. Although 92% would allow academic researchers to use study data, 80% and 75%, respectively, would grant access to government and industry researchers. Concern about privacy was related to lower willingness to participate only when respondents were told that they would receive $50 for participation and would not receive individual research results back. Among respondents who were told that they would receive $200 or individual research results, privacy concerns were not related to willingness. Survey respondents valued both privacy and participation in biomedical research. Despite pervasive privacy concerns, 60% would participate in a biobank. Assuring research participants that their privacy will be protected to the best of researchers' abilities may increase participants' acceptance of consent for broad research uses of biobank data by a wide range of researchers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: External Editor
                Journal
                J Pers Med
                J Pers Med
                jpm
                Journal of Personalized Medicine
                MDPI
                2075-4426
                20 November 2014
                December 2014
                : 4
                : 4
                : 459-474
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart TAS 7000, Australia; E-Mails: Rebekah.McWhirter@ 123456utas.edu.au (R.E.M.); Dianne.Nicol@ 123456utas.edu.au (D.N.); Don.Chalmers@ 123456utas.edu.au (D.C.)
                [2 ]Centre for Law and Genetics, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia; E-Mails: ccritchley@ 123456swin.edu.au (C.R.C.); Margaret.Otlowski@ 123456utas.edu.au (M.O.)
                [3 ]Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University, Melbourne VIC 3122, Australia
                [4 ]W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada; E-Mail: Michael.burgess@ 123456ubc.ca
                Author notes
                [* ]Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mails: Tess.Whitton@ 123456utas.edu.au (T.W.); Jo.Dickinson@ 123456utas.edu.au (J.L.D.); Tel.: +61-3-6226-7622 (J.L.D.); Fax: +61-3-6226-7704 (J.L.D.).
                Article
                jpm-04-00459
                10.3390/jpm4040459
                4282883
                25563457
                4a31f7a1-a6eb-42fa-b433-020fce2216fe
                © 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

                This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 27 August 2014
                : 08 October 2014
                : 12 November 2014
                Categories
                Article

                community consultation,public engagement,big epidemiology,personalized medicine,biobanks,ethics,deliberative democracy

                Comments

                Comment on this article