Communicating with biobank participants: Preferences for receiving and providing updates to researchers

Jessica L. Mester, MaryBeth Mercer, Aaron Goldenberg, Rebekah A. Moore, Charis Eng, Richard R Sharp

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Research biobanks collect biologic samples and healthinformation. Previousworkshows that biobankparticipants desire general study updates, but preferences about the method or frequency of these communications have not been explored. Thus, we surveyed participants in a long-standing research biobank. Methods: Eligible participants were drawn from a study of patients with personal/family history suggestive of Cowden syndrome, a poorly recognized inherited cancer syndrome. Participants gave blood samples and access to medical records and received individual results but had no other study interactions. The biobank had 3,618 participants at sampling. Survey eligibility included age ≥18 years, enrollment within the biobank's first 5 years, normal PTEN analysis, and contiguous U.S. address. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified predictors of participant interest in Internet-based versus offline methods and methods allowing participant-researcher interaction versus oneway communication. Independent variables were narrowed by independent Pearson correlations by cutoff P < 0.2, with P < 0.02 considered significant. Results: Surveys were returned from 840 of 1,267 (66%) eligible subjects. Most (97%) wanted study updates, with 92% wanting updates at least once a year. Participants preferred paper (66%) or emailed (62%) newsletter methods, with 95% selecting one of these. Older, less-educated, and lower-income respondents strongly preferred offline approaches (P < 0.001). Most (93%) had no concerns about receiving updates and 97% were willing to provide health updates to researchers. Conclusion: Most participants were comfortable receiving and providing updated information. Demographic factors predicted communication preferences. Impact: Researchers should make plans for ongoing communication early in study development and funders should support the necessary infrastructure for these efforts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(4); 708-12.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)708-712
Number of pages5
JournalCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention
Volume24
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2015

Fingerprint

Research Personnel
Communication
Multiple Hamartoma Syndrome
Tumor Biomarkers
Research
Internet
Medical Records
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis
Demography
Health
Surveys and Questionnaires
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Communicating with biobank participants : Preferences for receiving and providing updates to researchers. / Mester, Jessica L.; Mercer, MaryBeth; Goldenberg, Aaron; Moore, Rebekah A.; Eng, Charis; Sharp, Richard R.

In: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 4, 01.04.2015, p. 708-712.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mester, Jessica L. ; Mercer, MaryBeth ; Goldenberg, Aaron ; Moore, Rebekah A. ; Eng, Charis ; Sharp, Richard R. / Communicating with biobank participants : Preferences for receiving and providing updates to researchers. In: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. 2015 ; Vol. 24, No. 4. pp. 708-712.
@article{f4471435fd124248b43ab7089dc9fd33,
title = "Communicating with biobank participants: Preferences for receiving and providing updates to researchers",
abstract = "Background: Research biobanks collect biologic samples and healthinformation. Previousworkshows that biobankparticipants desire general study updates, but preferences about the method or frequency of these communications have not been explored. Thus, we surveyed participants in a long-standing research biobank. Methods: Eligible participants were drawn from a study of patients with personal/family history suggestive of Cowden syndrome, a poorly recognized inherited cancer syndrome. Participants gave blood samples and access to medical records and received individual results but had no other study interactions. The biobank had 3,618 participants at sampling. Survey eligibility included age ≥18 years, enrollment within the biobank's first 5 years, normal PTEN analysis, and contiguous U.S. address. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified predictors of participant interest in Internet-based versus offline methods and methods allowing participant-researcher interaction versus oneway communication. Independent variables were narrowed by independent Pearson correlations by cutoff P < 0.2, with P < 0.02 considered significant. Results: Surveys were returned from 840 of 1,267 (66{\%}) eligible subjects. Most (97{\%}) wanted study updates, with 92{\%} wanting updates at least once a year. Participants preferred paper (66{\%}) or emailed (62{\%}) newsletter methods, with 95{\%} selecting one of these. Older, less-educated, and lower-income respondents strongly preferred offline approaches (P < 0.001). Most (93{\%}) had no concerns about receiving updates and 97{\%} were willing to provide health updates to researchers. Conclusion: Most participants were comfortable receiving and providing updated information. Demographic factors predicted communication preferences. Impact: Researchers should make plans for ongoing communication early in study development and funders should support the necessary infrastructure for these efforts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(4); 708-12.",
author = "Mester, {Jessica L.} and MaryBeth Mercer and Aaron Goldenberg and Moore, {Rebekah A.} and Charis Eng and Sharp, {Richard R}",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1375",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "708--712",
journal = "Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention",
issn = "1055-9965",
publisher = "American Association for Cancer Research Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communicating with biobank participants

T2 - Preferences for receiving and providing updates to researchers

AU - Mester, Jessica L.

AU - Mercer, MaryBeth

AU - Goldenberg, Aaron

AU - Moore, Rebekah A.

AU - Eng, Charis

AU - Sharp, Richard R

PY - 2015/4/1

Y1 - 2015/4/1

N2 - Background: Research biobanks collect biologic samples and healthinformation. Previousworkshows that biobankparticipants desire general study updates, but preferences about the method or frequency of these communications have not been explored. Thus, we surveyed participants in a long-standing research biobank. Methods: Eligible participants were drawn from a study of patients with personal/family history suggestive of Cowden syndrome, a poorly recognized inherited cancer syndrome. Participants gave blood samples and access to medical records and received individual results but had no other study interactions. The biobank had 3,618 participants at sampling. Survey eligibility included age ≥18 years, enrollment within the biobank's first 5 years, normal PTEN analysis, and contiguous U.S. address. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified predictors of participant interest in Internet-based versus offline methods and methods allowing participant-researcher interaction versus oneway communication. Independent variables were narrowed by independent Pearson correlations by cutoff P < 0.2, with P < 0.02 considered significant. Results: Surveys were returned from 840 of 1,267 (66%) eligible subjects. Most (97%) wanted study updates, with 92% wanting updates at least once a year. Participants preferred paper (66%) or emailed (62%) newsletter methods, with 95% selecting one of these. Older, less-educated, and lower-income respondents strongly preferred offline approaches (P < 0.001). Most (93%) had no concerns about receiving updates and 97% were willing to provide health updates to researchers. Conclusion: Most participants were comfortable receiving and providing updated information. Demographic factors predicted communication preferences. Impact: Researchers should make plans for ongoing communication early in study development and funders should support the necessary infrastructure for these efforts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(4); 708-12.

AB - Background: Research biobanks collect biologic samples and healthinformation. Previousworkshows that biobankparticipants desire general study updates, but preferences about the method or frequency of these communications have not been explored. Thus, we surveyed participants in a long-standing research biobank. Methods: Eligible participants were drawn from a study of patients with personal/family history suggestive of Cowden syndrome, a poorly recognized inherited cancer syndrome. Participants gave blood samples and access to medical records and received individual results but had no other study interactions. The biobank had 3,618 participants at sampling. Survey eligibility included age ≥18 years, enrollment within the biobank's first 5 years, normal PTEN analysis, and contiguous U.S. address. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified predictors of participant interest in Internet-based versus offline methods and methods allowing participant-researcher interaction versus oneway communication. Independent variables were narrowed by independent Pearson correlations by cutoff P < 0.2, with P < 0.02 considered significant. Results: Surveys were returned from 840 of 1,267 (66%) eligible subjects. Most (97%) wanted study updates, with 92% wanting updates at least once a year. Participants preferred paper (66%) or emailed (62%) newsletter methods, with 95% selecting one of these. Older, less-educated, and lower-income respondents strongly preferred offline approaches (P < 0.001). Most (93%) had no concerns about receiving updates and 97% were willing to provide health updates to researchers. Conclusion: Most participants were comfortable receiving and providing updated information. Demographic factors predicted communication preferences. Impact: Researchers should make plans for ongoing communication early in study development and funders should support the necessary infrastructure for these efforts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(4); 708-12.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927944089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927944089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1375

DO - 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1375

M3 - Article

C2 - 25597748

AN - SCOPUS:84927944089

VL - 24

SP - 708

EP - 712

JO - Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

JF - Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

SN - 1055-9965

IS - 4

ER -