Informed consent
Is broad biobank consent good enough?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Study-specific consent looks strict but fits biobanks poorly; a modified broad consent that is also ‘deep’ best protects participants on the authors’ criteria-based model.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
For open-ended research, consent must be broad-and-deep or revisable, not frozen at enrolment.
Study-specific consent fits biobanks poorly; one argument favours a modified broad consent that is also 'deep', while another proposes dynamic consent — a personalised online platform through which participants are updated and re-asked as uses change.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one relies on criteria-based governance and the other on a living digital interface that keeps asking participants.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one relies on criteria-based governance and the other on a living digital interface that keeps asking participants.
- Challenges · Can consent stay alive after enrolment?
Discoveries this paper informs or conflicts with
- Biobank consent is broken in one specific way, and the two proposed fixes contradict each other
This paper informs this development.
- Thirteen genomics consent forms, and what most of them left unspecified
This paper informs this development.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Other — Criteria-based ethical argument for modified broad (‘deep’) biobank consent
- N
- Normative bioethics analysis; not an empirical sample
- Population
- Biobank consent models (study-specific vs broad vs modified deep broad consent)
- Outcome
- Deepened broad consent as best protecting participants for biobank reuse
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
Is broad biobank consent good enough?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
Debate?
biobanks as a vital research tool in the medical sciences has led to widespread debate in the literature about how to best handle the informed consent proc
Managers adopted?
broad consent model have generally been adopted by those managing biobanks (although there are significant variations in the implementation of informed con
Key findings
Broad consent as usually practised is not enough unless deepened. Specific consent is the intuitive starting point but fails biobank reuse. Protection of participants is the test, not administrative convenience alone.
Methodology
They map why managers adopted broad consent, contrast study-specific consent, then argue for a modified version assessed against explicit criteria rather than slogans.
Limitations
This is a normative model paper, not a biobank RCT. It does not measure how ‘deep’ any existing form is.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.