Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep

Background As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models w...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:BMC medical ethics Ročník 20; číslo 1; s. 71 - 12
Hlavní autori: Mikkelsen, Rasmus Bjerregaard, Gjerris, Mickey, Waldemar, Gunhild, Sandøe, Peter
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: London BioMed Central 15.10.2019
BioMed Central Ltd
Springer Nature B.V
BMC
Predmet:
ISSN:1472-6939, 1472-6939
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Abstract Background As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed , exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent. Main text In light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants’ values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication. Conclusion We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research.
AbstractList As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed, exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent. In light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants' values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication. We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research.
Background As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed, exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent. Main text In light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants’ values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication. Conclusion We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research.
Background As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed, exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent. Main text In light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants' values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication. Conclusion We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research. Keywords: Informed consent, Biobank research, Autonomy, Consent models, Risks, Ethics
As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed, exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent. We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research.
As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed, exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent.BACKGROUNDAs biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed, exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent.In light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants' values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication.MAIN TEXTIn light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants' values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication.We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research.CONCLUSIONWe conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research.
Background As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed , exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent. Main text In light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants’ values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication. Conclusion We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research.
Abstract Background As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed, exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent. Main text In light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants’ values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication. Conclusion We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research.
ArticleNumber 71
Audience Academic
Author Gjerris, Mickey
Sandøe, Peter
Mikkelsen, Rasmus Bjerregaard
Waldemar, Gunhild
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Rasmus Bjerregaard
  orcidid: 0000-0002-3453-5287
  surname: Mikkelsen
  fullname: Mikkelsen, Rasmus Bjerregaard
  organization: Dept. of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Mickey
  orcidid: 0000-0001-5739-5988
  surname: Gjerris
  fullname: Gjerris, Mickey
  organization: Dept. of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Gunhild
  surname: Waldemar
  fullname: Waldemar, Gunhild
  organization: Danish Dementia Research Centre, Dept. of Neurology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Peter
  orcidid: 0000-0003-0397-3273
  surname: Sandøe
  fullname: Sandøe, Peter
  email: pes@sund.ku.dk
  organization: Dept. of Food and Resource Economics and Dept. of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31615491$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNqNkstu1DAUhiNURC_wAGxQJDawSPEtvmxApSowolIRt61lJ_bgIRMPdqaiO96BN-RJOGla2qkAVVkkOfn-_-T8PrvFVh97VxQPMdrHWPJnGROFUYWwqhDDrOJ3ih3MBKm4omrr2vN2sZvzAiEsJCX3im2KOa6ZwjvFi5cpmrZsYp9dP5Q-ptKGaE3_NZchl9blofz142e5SvE0tK4twzDWTZdj2Tq3ul_c9fDiHlzc94pPr44-Hr6pjk9ezw4PjqtGoHqoDGe-5lbUjjlu4We5F8hjLrCyvEZcUgazSOOlpbwWUsra15SYljSKWUPoXjGbfNtoFnqVwtKkMx1N0OeFmObapCE0ndPCOSoU54oTAgEwg5RVshGtaJG10oPX88lrtbZL1zYweDLdhunmlz580fN4qrlQTHIGBk8uDFL8toaI9DLkxnWd6V1cZ00o4gRT6A_o4xvoIq5TD1GdU5IwrOQVNTcwQOh9hL7NaKoPOCKSqpqNbff_QsHVumWAE3Q-QH1D8HRDAMzgvg9zs85Zv303uzU7-_D-9uzJ50320fWw_6R8uYIAiAloUsw5Oa-bMJghxDH70GmM9Ljselp2Dcuux2XXHJT4hvLS_H8aMmkysP3cpavz-LfoN0H6Cfw
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_12688_wellcomeopenres_16556_1
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11019_025_10272_9
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0248401
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2024_1359654
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41746_025_01868_9
crossref_primary_10_1080_15265161_2025_2470694
crossref_primary_10_1080_15265161_2025_2470690
crossref_primary_10_12688_wellcomeopenres_16556_2
crossref_primary_10_1177_1556264620969301
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12967_023_04039_0
crossref_primary_10_1089_bio_2021_0094
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cct_2022_106819
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41562_021_01163_z
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_022_00782_z
crossref_primary_10_1057_s41292_023_00299_7
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_022_10413_w
crossref_primary_10_1089_bio_2024_0078
crossref_primary_10_3389_fgene_2021_711614
crossref_primary_10_15829_1728_8800_2021_3120
crossref_primary_10_3389_fgene_2023_1261623
crossref_primary_10_1080_11287462_2023_2288331
crossref_primary_10_3389_fvets_2024_1359546
crossref_primary_10_1093_gigascience_giae021
crossref_primary_10_22394_2074_0492_2020_2_87_103
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_vph_2023_107179
crossref_primary_10_1089_bio_2020_0101
crossref_primary_10_2196_34959
crossref_primary_10_1136_jme_2024_110153
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_023_00882_4
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mcpdig_2023_02_003
crossref_primary_10_1080_15265161_2024_2416117
crossref_primary_10_1007_s40592_021_00126_4
crossref_primary_10_1186_s40504_021_00117_7
crossref_primary_10_1159_000521371
crossref_primary_10_2196_42507
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11948_022_00398_x
crossref_primary_10_1080_15265161_2025_2470679
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11019_021_10060_1
crossref_primary_10_1002_cjp2_246
crossref_primary_10_1093_phe_phad025
crossref_primary_10_1089_bio_2024_0001
crossref_primary_10_1093_phe_phac014
crossref_primary_10_2217_pme_2020_0113
crossref_primary_10_1177_15562646251371249
crossref_primary_10_2139_ssrn_5351710
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_023_00988_9
crossref_primary_10_3390_app15126642
crossref_primary_10_3390_genes15111352
crossref_primary_10_3390_jpm13060911
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejmg_2023_104810
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_025_01199_0
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11948_024_00491_3
crossref_primary_10_2196_52180
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_022_00823_7
crossref_primary_10_1177_19475535251374854
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11019_022_10074_3
crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2024_1489925
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41597_024_03326_9
crossref_primary_10_1177_17470161231185510
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00481_024_00805_w
crossref_primary_10_70537_sefr2v40
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00481_022_00715_9
crossref_primary_10_1080_08989621_2023_2248884
crossref_primary_10_1089_bio_2022_0112
crossref_primary_10_1177_17470161241278064
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mayocp_2020_10_021
crossref_primary_10_1038_s12276_021_00606_x
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_placenta_2020_05_007
crossref_primary_10_1002_eahr_60028
crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph19052552
Cites_doi 10.1080/1463677032000147199
10.1038/nmeth.2142
10.5661/bger-25-429
10.1080/15265161.2015.1062162
10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9
10.1136/bmj.h2146
10.1017/S0963180117000457
10.1017/S096318011100048X
10.1080/15265161.2017.1388448
10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70618-0
10.1038/ejhg.2012.282
10.1038/jhg.2011.19
10.1001/jama.2012.15592
10.1136/bmj.d6900.20
10.1038/ejhg.2014.71
10.1038/nrg1473
10.1136/jme.2008.024851
10.2307/3563696
10.1186/s12910-015-0053-5
10.1163/15718099720521896
10.1038/sj.embor.7400740
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright The Author(s). 2019
COPYRIGHT 2019 BioMed Central Ltd.
2019. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Copyright_xml – notice: The Author(s). 2019
– notice: COPYRIGHT 2019 BioMed Central Ltd.
– notice: 2019. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
DBID C6C
AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
IOV
ISR
KPI
3V.
7X7
7XB
88C
88E
8FI
8FJ
8FK
AABKS
ABSDQ
ABUWG
AFKRA
AZQEC
BENPR
CCPQU
DWQXO
FYUFA
GHDGH
K9.
M0S
M0T
M1P
PGAAH
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PJZUB
PKEHL
PPXIY
PQEST
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6
DatabaseName Springer Nature OA Free Journals
CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints
Gale In Context: Science
Gale In Context: Global Issues
ProQuest Central (Corporate)
Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)
ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)
Medical Database (Alumni Edition)
Hospital Premium Collection
Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
Philosophy Collection
Philosophy Database
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
ProQuest Central Essentials - QC
ProQuest Central
ProQuest One
ProQuest Central Korea
Health Research Premium Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Health & Medical Collection
ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database
Medical Database
One Religion & Philosophy
ProQuest Databases
ProQuest One Academic (New)
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
One Health & Nursing
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
ProQuest One Academic (retired)
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Central China
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest One Health & Nursing
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest One Religion & Philosophy
Philosophy Collection
ProQuest Central
ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection
Health Research Premium Collection
Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central Korea
Health & Medical Research Collection
ProQuest Central (New)
ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni)
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
ProQuest Health Management
ProQuest Hospital Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
ProQuest Medical Library
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Health Management (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic (New)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
Philosophy Database
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE
Publicly Available Content Database



MEDLINE - Academic




Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: PIMPY
  name: ProQuest Publicly Available Content Database
  url: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
Education
Philosophy
EISSN 1472-6939
EndPage 12
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_7ee3796696224724a09b98c7d7d0bb8f
PMC6794864
A602839544
31615491
10_1186_s12910_019_0414_6
Genre Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
GeographicLocations Denmark
GeographicLocations_xml – name: Denmark
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: Innovationsfonden
  grantid: 4108-00008B
  funderid: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012774
– fundername: ;
  grantid: 4108-00008B
GroupedDBID ---
0R~
23N
2WC
53G
5GY
5VS
6J9
6PF
7X7
88E
8FI
8FJ
AABKS
AAFWJ
AAJSJ
AASML
AAWTL
ABIVO
ABSDQ
ABUWG
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACHQT
ACIHN
ADBBV
ADRAZ
ADUKV
AEAQA
AENEX
AFKRA
AFPKN
AHBYD
AHMBA
AHYZX
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMKLP
AMTXH
AOIJS
AQUVI
BAPOH
BAWUL
BCNDV
BENPR
BFQNJ
BMC
BPHCQ
BVXVI
C6C
CCPQU
CS3
DIK
DU5
E3Z
EBD
EBLON
EBS
EJD
EMB
EMOBN
F5P
FYUFA
GROUPED_DOAJ
GX1
HMCUK
HYE
IAO
IHR
INH
INR
IOV
IPY
ISR
ITC
KPI
KQ8
M0T
M1P
M48
M~E
O5R
O5S
OK1
OVT
P2P
PGAAH
PGMZT
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PJZUB
PPXIY
PQQKQ
PROAC
PSQYO
PUEGO
RBZ
RNS
ROL
RPM
RSV
SHS
SOJ
SV3
TR2
UKHRP
WOQ
WOW
XSB
AAYXX
AFFHD
CITATION
-A0
3V.
ACRMQ
ADINQ
ALIPV
C24
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7XB
8FK
AZQEC
DWQXO
K9.
PKEHL
PQEST
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c705t-a64f56b75e4e6b0416f70f16719b65068341298af8b36578885f532ad2c94ba23
IEDL.DBID DOA
ISICitedReferencesCount 81
ISICitedReferencesURI http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000490433600001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN 1472-6939
IngestDate Fri Oct 03 12:48:39 EDT 2025
Tue Nov 04 01:56:44 EST 2025
Sun Nov 09 13:50:24 EST 2025
Tue Oct 07 05:22:50 EDT 2025
Tue Nov 11 10:12:46 EST 2025
Tue Nov 04 17:29:13 EST 2025
Thu Nov 13 14:28:30 EST 2025
Thu Nov 13 15:47:33 EST 2025
Thu Nov 13 14:29:59 EST 2025
Thu Jan 02 22:59:31 EST 2025
Sat Nov 29 02:22:46 EST 2025
Tue Nov 18 21:59:30 EST 2025
Sat Sep 06 07:30:50 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Keywords Biobank research
Risks
Ethics
Informed consent
Consent models
Autonomy
Language English
License Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c705t-a64f56b75e4e6b0416f70f16719b65068341298af8b36578885f532ad2c94ba23
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ORCID 0000-0003-0397-3273
0000-0002-3453-5287
0000-0001-5739-5988
OpenAccessLink https://doaj.org/article/7ee3796696224724a09b98c7d7d0bb8f
PMID 31615491
PQID 2306824198
PQPubID 42596
PageCount 12
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_7ee3796696224724a09b98c7d7d0bb8f
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6794864
proquest_miscellaneous_2306213622
proquest_journals_2306824198
gale_infotracmisc_A602839544
gale_infotracacademiconefile_A602839544
gale_incontextgauss_KPI_A602839544
gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A602839544
gale_incontextgauss_IOV_A602839544
pubmed_primary_31615491
crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s12910_019_0414_6
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_019_0414_6
springer_journals_10_1186_s12910_019_0414_6
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2019-10-15
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2019-10-15
PublicationDate_xml – month: 10
  year: 2019
  text: 2019-10-15
  day: 15
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace London
PublicationPlace_xml – name: London
– name: England
PublicationTitle BMC medical ethics
PublicationTitleAbbrev BMC Med Ethics
PublicationTitleAlternate BMC Med Ethics
PublicationYear 2019
Publisher BioMed Central
BioMed Central Ltd
Springer Nature B.V
BMC
Publisher_xml – name: BioMed Central
– name: BioMed Central Ltd
– name: Springer Nature B.V
– name: BMC
References K Hoeyer (414_CR10) 2008; 25
TL Beauchamp (414_CR14) 2013
Z Master (414_CR17) 2012; 9
LE Wolf (414_CR21) 2004; 26
I Budin-Ljøsne (414_CR20) 2016; 18
414_CR11
MG Hansson (414_CR4) 2006; 7
414_CR3
414_CR16
J Kaye (414_CR7) 2014; 23
414_CR19
414_CR12
414_CR15
G Helgesson (414_CR23) 2011; 21
KS Steinsbekk (414_CR9) 2013; 21
TJ Kasperbauer (414_CR24) 2017; 27
C Grady (414_CR18) 2015; 15
414_CR8
A Hendriks (414_CR13) 1997; 4
BS Elger (414_CR2) 2006; 7
B Hofmann (414_CR6) 2009; 35
414_CR22
K Hoeyer (414_CR5) 2004; 32
414_CR27
NW Dickert (414_CR1) 2017; 17
414_CR25
414_CR26
References_xml – ident: 414_CR27
  doi: 10.1080/1463677032000147199
– volume-title: Principles of biomedical ethics
  year: 2013
  ident: 414_CR14
– ident: 414_CR12
– volume: 9
  start-page: 885
  issue: 9
  year: 2012
  ident: 414_CR17
  publication-title: Nat Methods
  doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2142
– volume: 25
  start-page: 429
  issue: 1
  year: 2008
  ident: 414_CR10
  publication-title: Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev
  doi: 10.5661/bger-25-429
– volume: 15
  start-page: 34
  issue: 9
  year: 2015
  ident: 414_CR18
  publication-title: Am J Bioeth
  doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1062162
– volume: 18
  start-page: 4
  issue: 1
  year: 2016
  ident: 414_CR20
  publication-title: BMC Medical Ethics.
  doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9
– ident: 414_CR8
  doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2146
– volume: 27
  start-page: 123
  issue: 1
  year: 2017
  ident: 414_CR24
  publication-title: Camb Q Healthc Ethic
  doi: 10.1017/S0963180117000457
– volume: 21
  start-page: 40
  issue: 1
  year: 2011
  ident: 414_CR23
  publication-title: Camb Q Healthc Ethic
  doi: 10.1017/S096318011100048X
– volume: 17
  start-page: 3
  issue: 12
  year: 2017
  ident: 414_CR1
  publication-title: Am J Bioeth
  doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1388448
– volume: 7
  start-page: 266
  issue: 3
  year: 2006
  ident: 414_CR4
  publication-title: Lancet Oncol
  doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70618-0
– volume: 21
  start-page: 897
  issue: 9
  year: 2013
  ident: 414_CR9
  publication-title: Eur J Hum Genet
  doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.282
– ident: 414_CR26
  doi: 10.1038/jhg.2011.19
– ident: 414_CR15
  doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.15592
– ident: 414_CR19
  doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6900.20
– volume: 23
  start-page: 141
  issue: 2
  year: 2014
  ident: 414_CR7
  publication-title: Eur J Hum Genet
  doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.71
– ident: 414_CR16
  doi: 10.1038/nrg1473
– volume: 35
  start-page: 125
  issue: 2
  year: 2009
  ident: 414_CR6
  publication-title: J Med Ethics
  doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024851
– ident: 414_CR11
– volume: 26
  start-page: 1
  issue: 4
  year: 2004
  ident: 414_CR21
  publication-title: Irb Ethics Hum Res
  doi: 10.2307/3563696
– ident: 414_CR25
  doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0053-5
– volume: 4
  start-page: 89
  issue: 1
  year: 1997
  ident: 414_CR13
  publication-title: European J Heal Law
  doi: 10.1163/15718099720521896
– volume: 7
  start-page: 661
  issue: 7
  year: 2006
  ident: 414_CR2
  publication-title: EMBO Rep
  doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400740
– ident: 414_CR22
– volume: 32
  start-page: 224
  issue: 3
  year: 2004
  ident: 414_CR5
  publication-title: Scand J Soc Med
– ident: 414_CR3
SSID ssj0017832
Score 2.4857676
Snippet Background As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from...
As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research...
Background As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from...
Abstract Background As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
gale
pubmed
crossref
springer
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
Publisher
StartPage 71
SubjectTerms Analysis
Autonomy
Biobank research
Biological Specimen Banks - ethics
Biological Specimen Banks - standards
Consent models
Debate
Education
Ethics
Ethics in Biomedical Research
Human subjects
Humans
Informed consent
Informed Consent - ethics
Informed Consent - standards
Medical ethics
Medical research
Participation
Personal Autonomy
Philosophy
Philosophy of Medicine
Risks
Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)
  dbid: 7X7
  link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwELagIMSFdyFQkEFISKCoeTh-nKqCqKgQpeKlvVl2bJcIlCybXc78B_4hv4SZrHdLiloOXOOJEs9883BmMkPIYxZ8sNK4lDnGU1YWdao8YNkVzlqheM4NG4ZNiIMDOZmow_jBrY9llSubOBhq19X4jXwbQ2UJ7kbJnem3FKdGYXY1jtA4Ty7g2GzEuZisD1y5ALjGTGYu-XYPvm0ow8J0QM5SPvJFQ8v-vw3zH57pZNXkidTp4JH2rv7vXq6RKzEWpbtL8Fwn53x7g1x6E7PtN8kOnNGNozUWXLdzCuEttQ3of_ulp01PLTyQ_vrxk8a_-Rxt5ngdAN1R5_30Fvm49_LDi1dpHLiQ1iKr5qnhLFTcisozzy3wiAeRhZyLXFmI5LgEl1coaYK0Ja_w8FyFqiyMK2rFrCnKTbLRdq2_Q6hyJvgMxJ5jhz3v5NB_lLEscO6NNAnJVqzXdexGjkMxvurhVCK5XkpLg7Q0SkvzhDxd3zJdtuI4i_g5ynNNiF20hwvd7EhHpdTC-xLwyBWHQEYUzGTKKlkLJ1xmrQwJeYRo0Ngno8VCnCOz6Hu9__aT3uUYmCnY22lE79_9m-j14f6I6EkkCh3wojbxDwngKDbpGlFujSjBJNTj5RXudDRJvT4GXUIerpfxTiyza323WNIUOcQ0RUJuL9G-5mCJZwOm8oSIkR6MWDxeaZvPQ8NyDkZfcnitZyuNOX6tUyV49-xN3COXC9RkLC6qtsjGfLbw98nF-vu86WcPBjvwG63TYIE
  priority: 102
  providerName: ProQuest
– databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary Collection
  dbid: RSV
  link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1baxQxFA5aRfriZb10tMoogqAMnUsmlyepYrGIdbFa-haSSVIXy2zZ2RV88z_4D_0lnpPNrE61ir5OTiA5Odc5J18IeUi980Zom1FLWUarssmkA1m2pTWGS1YwTcNjE3xvTxweynG8x9313e59STJY6qDWgm114JlCExX-zC9oxs6TCzWCzWCKvn-wKh1wkNFYvvzttIEDCjj9v1rjn9zR6VbJU_XS4IZ2rvzXBq6SyzHqTLeXYnKNnHPtCB9sjs0dI3Lpdayxj8j6uH_d4PN18hTSdG3TBnuu23kKEW5qJmAC2o9dOulSA7tIv335msYLfTadzPE7yPQ0tc6d3CDvd168e_4yi28uZA3P63mmGfU1M7x21DED62Se575gvJAGgjkmwOuVUmgvTMVqzJ9rX1eltmUjqdFldZOstdPWbZBUWu1dDidfIMiesyJAkFKae8acFjoheX8QqomA5PguxrEKiYlgaskxBRxTyDHFEvJ4NeVkicbxJ-JneLorQgTSDh-msyMV9VJx5yoQSSYZxDK8pDqXRoqGW25zY4RPyAOUDYVQGS324hzpRdep3TcHapthbCZhb2cR7b_9O9Gr8e6A6FEk8lPgRaPjJQngKOJ0DSg3B5RgFZrhcC_MKlqlTmG6KSBkkyIh91fDOBM77Vo3XSxpygLCmjIht5ayv-JghekBlUVC-EArBiwejrSTDwGznIHdFwyW9aTXjR_LOvMEb_8T9R2yXqJyYbtRvUnW5rOFu0suNp_mk252LxiJ79AoXgU
  priority: 102
  providerName: Springer Nature
Title Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep
URI https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31615491
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2306824198
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2306213622
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC6794864
https://doaj.org/article/7ee3796696224724a09b98c7d7d0bb8f
Volume 20
WOSCitedRecordID wos000490433600001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
journalDatabaseRights – providerCode: PRVADU
  databaseName: BioMed Central Open Access Free
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1472-6939
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: false
  ssIdentifier: ssj0017832
  issn: 1472-6939
  databaseCode: RBZ
  dateStart: 20000101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://www.biomedcentral.com/search/
  providerName: BioMedCentral
– providerCode: PRVAON
  databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1472-6939
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: false
  ssIdentifier: ssj0017832
  issn: 1472-6939
  databaseCode: DOA
  dateStart: 20000101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
– providerCode: PRVHPJ
  databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1472-6939
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: false
  ssIdentifier: ssj0017832
  issn: 1472-6939
  databaseCode: M~E
  dateStart: 20000101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org
  providerName: ISSN International Centre
– providerCode: PRVPQU
  databaseName: Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1472-6939
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: false
  ssIdentifier: ssj0017832
  issn: 1472-6939
  databaseCode: 7X7
  dateStart: 20090101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete
  providerName: ProQuest
– providerCode: PRVPQU
  databaseName: ProQuest Central
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1472-6939
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: false
  ssIdentifier: ssj0017832
  issn: 1472-6939
  databaseCode: BENPR
  dateStart: 20090101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central
  providerName: ProQuest
– providerCode: PRVPQU
  databaseName: ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1472-6939
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: false
  ssIdentifier: ssj0017832
  issn: 1472-6939
  databaseCode: M0T
  dateStart: 20090101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthmanagement
  providerName: ProQuest
– providerCode: PRVPQU
  databaseName: ProQuest Publicly Available Content Database
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1472-6939
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: false
  ssIdentifier: ssj0017832
  issn: 1472-6939
  databaseCode: PIMPY
  dateStart: 20090101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent
  providerName: ProQuest
– providerCode: PRVAVX
  databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary Collection
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1472-6939
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: false
  ssIdentifier: ssj0017832
  issn: 1472-6939
  databaseCode: RSV
  dateStart: 20001201
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22Journal%22
  providerName: Springer Nature
link http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1LbxMxELagIMQF8WahRAtCQgKtug-vHyfUolZEKCFKSxVOlr22IQJtqm7Cmf_AP-SXMLPrhG5R6YXLSrHHindmPA_N7GdCXlDvvBHaJtRSltAirxLpQJdtbo3hkmVM0_ayCT4ei9lMTs5c9YU9YR08cMe4He5cAWuYZOBseE51Ko0UFbfcpsYIj9Y35XKdTIX6AQdFDTXMTLCdBrxa24CFhYCMJqznhVqw_r9N8hmfdL5f8lzRtPVFB7fJrRBExrvd5u-QK66-S26MQpn8HnkDybW2cYWd0vUyhrg0NnM4uPXXJp43sYG_jX_9-BmHz_BsPF_iOGjiIrbOndwnHw_2j96-S8JNCUnF03KZaEZ9yQwvHXXMwCsyz1OfMZ5JAyEYE-Crcim0F6ZgJWa9pS-LXNu8ktTovHhAtupF7R6RWFrtXQryyhAaz1nRAodSmnrGnBY6Iumac6oKMOJ4m8U31aYTgqmO2QqYrZDZikXk1WbJSYeh8S_iPRTHhhDhr9sBUAoVlEJdphQReY7CVAhwUWMHzWe9aho1_HCsdhlGVBLe7SKiw-nlRO8nwx7Ry0DkF8CLSodPG4CjiK7Vo9zuUcJZrvrTa-1TwZY0CpNEAYGWFBF5tpnGldgfV7vFqqPJMwhG8og87JR1w8ECg3oqs4jwnhr3WNyfqedfWqRxBtZaMNjW67XC_9nWhRJ8_D8k-ITczPG4Yu9QuU22lqcr95Rcr74v583pgFzlM94-xYBc29sfT6aD1gDAc5QewdhkOJp8gl_Tw-Pfnq5ZNg
linkProvider Directory of Open Access Journals
linkToHtml http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V1Lb9QwELaqFgEX3o-FAgaBkEBRk6zj2AdUtUDV1XaXFbSonIwdO2UFSpbNLogb_4H_wY_ilzCTx5YUtZx64BpPInv8zcOZ8QwhD1nqUiO09Zhl3GPdMPGkAyzb0BoTSx5wzcpmE_FwKPb35WiJ_GzuwmBaZaMTS0Vt8wT_ka-hqyzA3EixPvnsYdcojK42LTQqWPTdt69wZCue9V7A_j4Kw62Xu8-3vbqrgJfEfjTzNGdpxE0cOea48cEhSWM_DXgcSAPuCheg10MpdCpMl0d4QozSqBtqGyaSGY2FDkDlrzAAu79MVka9wejdIm4Rg4DUsdNA8LUCvlQmfmEAImAeb1m_sknA36bgD1t4NE_zSLC2tIFbF_837l0iF2pvm25U4nGZLLnsCjk7qPMJrpL1zWmuLU0wpTybUXDgqRmDhss-FnRcUAMLpL--_6D1fUVLxzN8DiKbU-vc5BrZO5XpXyfLWZ65m4RKq1PnA7ADrCHorCgrrDLmp5w7LXSH-M1Wq6Sut45tPz6p8twluKrQoQAdCtGheIc8WbwyqYqNnES8ifhZEGKd8PJBPj1QtdpRsXNdkDguObhqcci0L40USWxj6xsj0g55gOhTWAkkw1SjAz0vCtV79VZtcHQ9JaztOKI3r_9N1B_1WkSPa6I0B14kur4DAhzFMmQtytUWJSi9pD3c4FzVSrdQhyDvkPuLYXwTEwkzl88rmjAAry3skBuVdC042MXTD5NBh8QtuWuxuD2SjT-UJdk5mDXBYVpPGwk9nNaxO3jr5EXcI-e2dwc7aqc37N8m50PUIphKFa2S5dl07u6QM8mX2biY3q21ECXvT1t0fwO-ObuN
linkToPdf http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Zb9QwELagoKovHMsVKBAQEhIoag7HxxMqx4pVYVm1UPXNsmO7rEDJapNF4o3_wD_klzBOnIUUCkK8xp8lezzjmcmMZxB6gK2xikkdYY1JhLO0iLgBXtapVopykhCJ22YTdDplR0d85vuc1n22ex-S7N40uCpNZbOz0LYTcUZ2atBSbUKV-7Gf4IicRecwODIup2v_4HAdRqDArz6U-dtpA2XU1uz_9Wb-STWdTJs8ETttVdL44n9v5hK64K3RcLdjn8vojClHrpGzT_oYoc3XPvY-QluzvuvB5yvoCbjvUoeFy8UumxAs31DN4WooP9ThvA4V7Cj89uVr6B_66XDeuO_A61WojVlcRe_GL94-exn5XgxRQeO8iSTBNieK5gYbomCdxNLYJoQmXIGRRxhow5QzaZnKSO786tzmWSp1WnCsZJpdQxtlVZobKORaWhMDRySu-J7RrC1NinFsCTGSyQDF_aGIwhcqd_0yPorWYWFEdBQTQDHhKCZIgB6tpyy6Kh1_Aj91J70GugLb7YdqeSy8vApqTAasSjgBG4emWMZccVZQTXWsFLMBuu_4RLgSGqXL0TmWq7oWkzeHYpc4m43D3k4DHez_HbQ3mwxADz3IVkCLQvrHE0BRV79rgNweIOG2KIbDPWMLf1vVwrmhDEw5zgJ0bz3sZroMvNJUqw6TJmDupAG63snBmoKZcxswTwJEBxIyIPFwpJy_b2uZE9AHjMCyHvdy8mNZp57gzX9C30Wbs-dj8Woy3buFtlInZy4jKd9GG81yZW6j88WnZl4v77R3x3dZg2nN
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Broad+consent+for+biobanks+is+best+-+provided+it+is+also+deep&rft.jtitle=BMC+medical+ethics&rft.au=Mikkelsen%2C+Rasmus+Bjerregaard&rft.au=Gjerris%2C+Mickey&rft.au=Waldemar%2C+Gunhild&rft.au=Sandae%2C+Peter&rft.date=2019-10-15&rft.pub=BioMed+Central+Ltd&rft.issn=1472-6939&rft.eissn=1472-6939&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12910-019-0414-6&rft.externalDBID=ISR&rft.externalDocID=A602839544
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1472-6939&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1472-6939&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1472-6939&client=summon