The majority of the UAs discussed the secondary use of material more than that of data.
There is a high percentage of UAs that mentioned the secondary use of biological material and/or data.
Eight UAs (8/37) talked about secondary use but did not mention recontact, whereas only one (1/37) mentioned recontact without discussing future use or any particular reason for doing so.> -wrap-foot> not not applicable.
As for the object of secondary use, 19 UAs referred to biological material only (19/32).
We therefore analyzed 32 secondary-use UAs, classified according to the field of research (Table 1a).
We evaluated if and how secondary use was presented in our UAs.
One UA (1/32) did not describe the goal of secondary use.
Only eight UAs (8/32) provided a clear choice of no secondary use (future use) at all (Table 1c).
We found that sharing was related most often to secondary use, and most of the UAs referred to sharing both material and data.
In 2004, the National Center for Health Statistics reported 1 565 000 hospitalizations for primary or secondary diagnosis of an ACS, 669 000 for UA, and 896 000 for MI.
In our UAs, IRBs suggested different approaches to obtain participant consent for secondary use of their samples or data.
