39% approved broad access by researchers and other professions30
| ‘To help’ people who have similar health problems14
| Benefits to the public15
| Privacy, confidentiality and risk of data reidentification14 15 30
| Lack of understanding and awareness15
| Participants with higher mean age were substantially less worried about privacy and confidentiality than other groups14
| The research being congruent with the participants’ values15
|
97% were supportive of sharing data postproject36
| ‘To contribute’ to advancements in medicine14
| Benefit to participants or immediate community15
| Concerns about misuse of data15
| Lack of controllability in releasing data14
| Willingness lower among individuals from under-represented minorities11
| The research being in the public’s interest15
|
Participants are open to and understand the advantages of data sharing15
| To serve the greater good14
| Benefits to science or research15
| Concern that personal information could be mined from genomic data14
| Sharing with commercial companies14
| Willingness lower among individuals with privacy and confidentiality concerns11
| Samples are de-identified11 30 36
|
Willingness for data to be shared was high11
| | Accelerating research advancement14
| Concerns about potential use of their data by for-profit entities14
| Sharing genomic data with a broader group of researchers and for a variety of research purposes14
| Willingness to endorse data sharing increases with trust in institutions and researchers14
| Respecting privacy of data11 14
|
Broad consent was often preferred over tiered or study-specific consent, particularly when broad consent was the only option11
| | Advancement of innovation30
| Re-use of data for purposes that participants do not agree on30
| | Distrust of the government as an oversight body for genetic research data35
| Risks are mitigated15
|
90% were supportive to share data with universities postproject36
| | Maximising the value of resources14
| Fear of using data for discriminatory purposes 14
| | Participants with some college or a college degree were more likely to choose restricted data release14
| Highly secure database30 36
|
56% were supportive to share data with commercial companies postproject36
| | Reducing waste in research30
| Stigmatisation or repercussions15
| | Personal perceptions of sensitivity of genomic data were influenced by elements such as race, gender, age, marital status and/or educational level14
| Postproject Data Access Committee should involve a researcher from the original research project, a clinician, patient representative, and a participant in the original study36
|
| | | Fear of exploitation15
| | Reputation of and trust in research organisation35
| Data access agreements30
|
| | | | | Willingness lower when pharmaceutical companies had access to data11
| Researchers of original study to monitor data used by other researchers36
|
| | | | | Being asked for consent for each study would make participants (81%) feel ‘respected and involved’, and 74% agreed that they would feel that they ‘had control14
| Need for transparency in data sharing and monitoring policies35
|
| | | | | Participants desire to be notified when their data are (re)used and to be informed of the results of studies using their data15
| Participants having understood that their data could be shared (transparency)15
|
| | | | | Participants desire to be involved in the data sharing process15
| Information on consequences of a breach of protection and penalties35
|
| | | | | To know what organisation/agency has oversight responsibilities for genetic research data as35
| Participants want to know more about how the data will be shared and with whom35
|
| | | | | | Information to participants30
|
| | | | | | Logistics of biobanks are communicated11
|
| | | | | | Knowing more about how the data will be shared and with whom14
|
| | | | | | Trust in the ability of the original institution to carry out the oversight tasks14
|
| | | | | | Sanctions for misuse30
|