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.
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.
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.
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.
Study-specific consent fits biobanks poorly; a modified broad consent that is also ‘deep’ is argued to protect participants better.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one leans on criteria-based protection and the other on a living digital interface.
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 leans on criteria-based protection and the other on a living digital interface.
- Supports · 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.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.