Advertisement

Responsiveness and adaptability in community engaged biobanking research: experiences from a Hispanic community

  • Maghboeba Mosavel
  • K. Laura Barker
  • Heather M. Gardiner
  • Laura A. Siminoff
Original Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

The success of biobanking research relies on the willingness of the public to provide biological and sociological information, donate tissue samples, and complete psychosocial questionnaires. Medical advances made through biobanking research have limited reach if tissues are not obtained from a diverse sample of individuals. Within, we describe the process of transitioning a small group of Hispanic community members who met regularly into a more formal Hispanic Community Advisory Board (HCAB) for the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. The sole purpose of the HCAB was to provide input and feedback on GTEx and, specifically, how researchers can best address the concerns of the Hispanic community related to tissue donation. This initial purpose was adapted to be responsive to the HCAB’s request to include educating others in the Hispanic community who were not a part of the advisory board about genomic biobanking. While HCAB members’ knowledge of biobanking was limited, a strong need for culturally tailored information about the impact of biobanking medical discoveries and their potential benefit to the Hispanic community was expressed. The HCAB’s feedback guided revisions to GTEx study documents to specifically address concerns about language use, clarity, and context including the need for consent forms to address cultural concerns and fears. HCAB members also collaborated on the development of a walk-through exhibition which provided a visual, narrative-based explanation of GTEx and the process of tissue donation for research and biobanking purposes. The HCAB demonstrated the value of including community participation in scientific research projects, for both scientists and lay communities, and underscored the importance of developing community engagement approaches that are adaptable and responsive to community needs. Our experience with the HCAB serves as exemplar for a unique paradigm of community inclusiveness and education in research.

Keywords

Tissue banks Genomics Hispanic Americans Community participation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The ELSI project would like the acknowledge the work of the GTEx OPO partners: Gift of Life in Philadelphia, PA; Center for Organ Recovery and Education in Pittsburgh, PA; LifeNet Health in Virginia Beach, VA; Washington Regional Transplant Center in Washington, DC; and LifeGift in Houston, TX. The authors would also like to recognize the family decision makers who participated in the ELSI project. Special thanks to the members of the GTEx Hispanic Community Advisory Board: Liliana Castillo, Lydia English, Maria Espiritu, Graciela Gomez, Jaime Jaime, Marianela Macedo, Juliana Moreno, Emperatriz Navarete, Vivian Robles, Maria Sanchez, and Sandra Torres.

Funding information

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (HHSN261200800001E—Leidos Prime contract with NCI) and the National Disease Research Interchange (10XS170).

Compliance with ethical standards

The ELSI sub-study protocol, including engagement of the CABs, was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Virginia Commonwealth University and Temple University.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Allyse MA, McCormick JB, Sharp RR (2015) Prudentia Populo: involving the community in biobank governance. Am J Bioeth 15:1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1062175 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bledsoe MJ (2017) Ethical Legal and Social Issues of Biobanking: past, present, and future. Biopreserv Biobank 15:142–147.  https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2017.0030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonham VL, Citrin T, Modell SM, Franklin TH, Bleicher EW, Fleck LM (2009) Community-based dialogue: engaging communities of color in the United States’ genetics policy conversation. J Health Polit Policy Law 34:325–359.  https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2009-009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Burchard EG, Ziv E, Coyle N, Gomez SL, Tang H, Karter AJ, Mountain JL, Perez-Stable EJ, Sheppard D, Risch N (2003) The importance of race and ethnic background in biomedical research and clinical practice. N Engl J Med 348:1170–1175.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb025007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell MK, Hudson MA, Resnicow K, Blakeney N, Paxton A, Baskin M (2007) Church-based health promotion interventions: evidence and lessons learned. Annu Rev Public Health 28:213–234.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Carithers LJ, Ardlie K, Barcus M, Branton PA, Britton A, Buia SA, Compton CC, DeLuca DS, Peter-Demchok J, Gelfand ET, Guan P, Korzeniewski GE, Lockhart NC, Rabiner CA, Rao AK, Robinson KL, Roche NV, Sawyer SJ, Segre AV, Shive CE, Smith AM, Sobin LH, Undale AH, Valentino KM, Vaught J, Young TR, Moore HM, Consortium GT (2015) A novel approach to high-quality postmortem tissue procurement: the GTEx project. Biopreserv Biobank 13:311–319.  https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2015.0032 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen K, Jayaratne T, Roberts J, Kardia S, Petty E (2010) Understandings of basic genetics in the United States: results from a national survey of black and white men and women. Public Health Genomics 13:467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colby SL, Ortman JM (2015) Projection of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2017
  9. Cornwall A, Jewkes R (1995) What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med 41:1667–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dang JH, Rodriguez EM, Luque JS, Erwin DO, Meade CD, Chen MS Jr (2014) Engaging diverse populations about biospecimen donation for cancer research. J Community Genet 5:313–327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-014-0186-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Den Broeder L, Devilee J, Van Oers H, Schuit AJ, Wagemakers A (2016) Citizen science for public health. Health Promot Int daw086.  https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daw086
  12. Erwin DO, Moysich K, Kiviniemi MT, Saad-Harfouche FG, Davis W, Clark-Hargrave N, Ciupak GL, Ambrosone CB, Walker C (2013) Community-based partnership to identify keys to biospecimen research participation. J Cancer Educ 28:43–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0421-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Etchegary H, Green J, Dicks E, Pullman D, Street C, Parfrey P (2013) Consulting the community: public expectations and attitudes about genetics research. Eur J Hum Genet 21:1338–1343.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.64 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Genotype-Tissue Expression Project (GTEx) (2015) GTEx donor screening worksheet dataset (unpublished). Biospecimen Source Site, National Disease Research Interchange, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  15. Godard B, Marshall J, Laberge C, Knoppers BM (2004) Strategies for consulting with the community: the cases of four large-scale genetic databases. Sci Eng Ethics 10:457–477.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0003-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldenberg AJ, Hull SC, Wilfond BS, Sharp RR (2011) Patient perspectives on group benefits and harms in genetic research. Public Health Genomics 14:135–142.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000317497 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gordon EJ, Feinglass J, Carney P, Ramirez D, Olivero M, O’Connor K, MacLean J, Brucker J, Caicedo JC (2015) An interactive, bilingual, culturally targeted website about living kidney donation and transplantation for Hispanics: development and formative evaluation. JMIR Res Protoc 4:e42.  https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.3838 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. GTEx Consortium (2015) Human genomics. The genotype-tissue expression (GTEx) pilot analysis: multitissue gene regulation in humans. Science 348:648–660.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1262110 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Haldeman KM, Cadigan RJ, Davis A, Goldenberg A, Henderson GE, Lassiter D, Reavely E (2014) Community engagement in US biobanking: multiplicity of meaning and method. Public Health Genomics 17:84–94.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000357958 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S (2009) Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared? Circulation 119:2633–2642.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.729863 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Keen JC, Moore HM (2015) The genotype-tissue expression (GTEx) project: linking clinical data with molecular analysis to advance personalized medicine. J Pers Med 5:22–29.  https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5010022 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim S, Flaskerud JH, Koniak-Griffin D, Dixon EL (2005) Using community-partnered participatory research to address health disparities in a Latino community. J Prof Nurs 21:199–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2005.05.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kimball BC, Nowakowski KE, Maschke KJ, McCormick JB (2014) Genomic data in the electronic medical record: perspectives from a biobank community advisory board. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 9:16–24.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614553922 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME (2010a) Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 13:368–377.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000276767 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemke AA, Wu JT, Waudby C, Pulley J, Somkin CP, Trinidad SB (2010b) Community engagement in biobanking: experiences from the eMERGE network. Genomics Soc Policy 6:35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linnan LA, D’Angelo H, Harrington CB (2014) A literature synthesis of health promotion research in salons and barbershops. Am J Prev Med 47:77–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.02.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Luque JS, Quinn GP, Montel-Ishino FA, Arevalo M, Bynum SA, Noel-Thomas S, Wells KJ, Gwede CK, Meade CD, Tampa Bay Community Cancer Network P (2012) Formative research on perceptions of biobanking: what community members think. J Cancer Educ 27:91–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-011-0275-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. McCarty CA, Chapman-Stone D, Derfus T, Giampietro PF, Fost N, Marshfield Clinic PCAG (2008) Community consultation and communication for a population-based DNA biobank: the Marshfield clinic personalized medicine research project. Am J Med Genet A 146A:3026–3033.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.32559 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. McCarty CA, Garber A, Reeser JC, Fost NC, Personalized Medicine Research Project Community Advisory G, Ethics, Security Advisory B (2011) Study newsletters, community and ethics advisory boards, and focus group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank. Am J Med Genet A 155A:737–741.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.33896 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Meade CD, Rodriguez EM, Arevalo M, Luque JS, Harris N, San Miguel G, Gwede CK, Erwin DO (2015) Introducing biospecimen science to communities: tools from two cities. Prog Community Health Partnersh 9(Suppl):51–59.  https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2015.0024 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Minkler M, Wallerstein N (2003) Community-based participatory research for health. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  32. Mongoven AM, Solomon S (2012) Biobanking: shifting the analogy from consent to surrogacy. Genet Med 14:183–188.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.49 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Mosavel M, Ferrell D, LaRose J (2016) House chats as a grassroots engagement methodology in community-based participatory research: the WE project, Petersburg. Prog Community Health Partnersh 10:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Human Genome Research Institute (2016) The genotype-tissue expression project (GTEx). https://www.genome.gov/27543767/. Accessed 27 Nov 2017
  35. National Institute of Health (2015) The precision medicine initiate cohort program—building a research foundation for 21st century medicine. http://acd.od.nih.gov/reports/PMI_WG_report_2015-09-17-Final.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2017
  36. National Institutes of Health (2018) About the All of Us research program. https://allofus.nih.gov/about/about-all-us-research-program. Accessed 17 Sept 2018
  37. Newkirk II VR (2016) A generation of bad blood: new research suggests a strong link between the public revelation of the Tuskegee study and poor health outcomes for black men. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/tuskegee-study-medical-distrust-research/487439/. Accessed 27 Nov 2017
  38. Newman SD, Andrews JO, Magwood GS, Jenkins C, Cox MJ, Williamson DC (2011) Community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a synthesis of best processes. Prev Chronic Dis 8:A70PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Nisbet MC, Fahy D (2013) Bioethics in popular science: evaluating the media impact of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks on the biobank debate. BMC Med Ethics 14:10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-10 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Oh SS, Galanter J, Thakur N, Pino-Yanes M, Barcelo NE, White MJ, de Bruin DM, Greenblatt RM, Bibbins-Domingo K, Wu AH, Borrell LN, Gunter C, Powe NR, Burchard EG (2015) Diversity in clinical and biomedical research: a promise yet to be fulfilled. PLoS Med 12:e1001918.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001918 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Rahm AK, Wrenn M, Carroll NM, Feigelson HS (2013) Biobanking for research: a survey of patient population attitudes and understanding. J Community Genet 4:445–450.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-013-0146-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Rodriguez EM, Torres ET, Erwin DO (2013) Awareness and interest in biospecimen donation for cancer research: views from gatekeepers and prospective participants in the Latino community. J Community Genet 4:461–468.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-013-0152-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodriguez EM, Saad-Harfouche FG, Miller A, Mahoney MC, Ambrosone CB, Morrison CD, Underwood WR, Erwin DO (2016) Engaging diverse populations in biospecimen donation: results from the Hoy y Manana study. J Community Genet 7:271–277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-016-0275-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Saad-Harfouche FG, Jandorf L, Gage E, Thelemaque LD, Colon J, Castillo AG, Trevino M, Erwin DO (2011) Esperanza y Vida: training lay health advisors and cancer survivors to promote breast and cervical cancer screening in Latinas. J Community Health 36:219–227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-010-9300-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Safo S, Cunningham C, Beckman A, Haughton L, Starrels JL (2016) “A place at the table:” a qualitative analysis of community board members’ experiences with academic HIV/AIDS research. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:80.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0181-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Shaibi G, Singh D, De Filippis E, Hernandez V, Rosenfeld B, Otu E, Montes de Oca G, Levey S, Radecki Breitkopf C, Sharp R, Olson J, Cerhan J, Thibodeau S, Winkler E, Mandarino L (2016) The Sangre Por Salud Biobank: facilitating genetic research in an underrepresented Latino community. Public Health Genomics 19:229–238.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000447347 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Siminoff LA, Traino HM, Mosavel M, Barker L, Gudger G, Undale A (2016) Family decision maker perspectives on the return of genetic results in biobanking research. Genet Med 18:82–88.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.38 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Siminoff LA, Wilson-Genderson M, Mosavel M, Barker L, Trgina J, Traino HM (2017) Confidentiality in biobanking research: a comparison of donor and nondonor families’ understanding of risks. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 21:171–177.  https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2016.0407 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Siminoff LA, Wilson-Genderson M, Mosavel M, Barker L, Trgina J, Traino HM, Nathan HM, Hasz RD,Walters G (2018) Impact of cognitive load on family decision maker recall and understanding of genotype-tissue expression project (GTEx) donation requests. J Clin Ethics 29:20–30Google Scholar
  50. Simon CM, Newbury E, heureux JL (2011) Protecting participants, promoting progress: public perspectives on community advisory boards (CABs) in biobanking. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 6:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.3.19 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith S (2013) Henrietta Lacks’ family finally gets say in genetic destiny. Can we control our own? CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/henrietta-lacks-genetic-destiny/. Accessed 12 Aug 2016
  52. Strauss R, Sengupta S, Quinn S, Goeppinger J, Spaulding C, Kegeles S, Millett G (2001) The role of community advisory boards: involving communities in the informed consent process. Am J Public Health 91:1938–1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Streicher SA, Sanderson SC, Jabs EW, Diefenbach M, Smirnoff M, Peter I, Horowitz CR, Brenner B, Richardson LD (2011) Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: a focus group study. J Community Genet 2:153–163.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0052-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. United States Department of Health and Human Service Office of Minority Health (2016) Cancer and Hispanic Americans. http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlID=61. Accessed 27 Nov 2017
  55. United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health (2016) Diabetes and Hispanic Americans. http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlID=63. Accessed 27 Nov 2017
  56. Vincent D, McEwen MM, Hepworth JT, Stump CS (2013) Challenges and success of recruiting and retention for a culturally tailored diabetes prevention program for adults of Mexican descent. Diabetes Educ 39:222–230.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721713475842 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Yarborough M, Edwards K, Espinoza P, Geller G, Sarwal A, Sharp R, Spicer P (2013) Relationships hold the key to trustworthy and productive translational science: recommendations for expanding community engagement in biomedical research. Clin Transl Sci 6:310–313.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12022 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Zimmer C (2013) A family consents to a medical gift, 62 years later. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/science/after-decades-of-research-henrietta-lacks-family-is-asked-for-consent.html?_r=0. Accessed 27 Nov 2017

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Behavior and Policy, School of MedicineVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.College of Public HealthTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Public Health, College of Public HealthTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.College of Public Health (286-00)Bell Building (TECH CENTER)PhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations