Introduction: To address ethical concerns about the of future research authorization, biobanks employing a broad model of consent can design ongoing communication with contributors. Notifying contributors at the time of sample distribution provides one form of communication to supplement broad consent. However, little is known about how community-informed governance might anticipate contributor responses and inform communication efforts. Objective: We explored the attitudes of members of a three-site Community Advisory Board (CAB) network. CAB members responded to a hypothetical proposal for notifying biobank contributors at the time of sample distribution to researchers utilizing the biobank. Methods: We used regularly scheduled CAB meetings to facilitate 3 large-group and 6 smallgroup discussions. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for thematic content using descriptive thematic analysis. Results: The results challenged our expectation of general support for the proposed communications. While CAB members identified some advantages, they were concerned about several potential harms to biobank contributors and the biobank. The CABs understood biobank communication in terms of an ongoing relationship with the biobank and a personal contribution to research. Conclusion: Our findings contribute to the emerging literature on community engagement in biobanking. Additional communication with biobank contributors can serve a variety of value-based objectives to supplement broad consent. Design of communication efforts by biobanks can be improved by CAB members' anticipation of the unintended consequences of additional contact with contributors. CAB members' holistic interpretation of communication efforts suggests that biobank leadership considers all communication options as part of a more comprehensive communications strategy.

As applications of genomic sequencing have expanded, offering genetic counseling support to all patients is arguably no longer practical. Additionally, whether individuals desire and value genetic counseling services for genomic screening is unclear. We offered elective genetic counseling to 5110 individuals prior to undergoing sequencing and 2310 participants who received neutral results to assess demand. A total of 0.2% of the study participants accessed genetic counseling services prior to sequencing, and 0.3% reached out after receiving neutral results. We later conducted 50 interviews with participants to understand why they did not access these services. Many interviewees did not recall the availability of genetic counseling and were unfamiliar with the profession. Interviewees described not needing counseling before sequencing because they understood the study and felt that they could cope with any result. Counseling was considered equally unnecessary after learning neutral results. Although the participants had questions about their results, they did not feel that speaking with a genetic counselor would be helpful. Genomic screening efforts that employ opt-in models of genetic counseling may need to clarify the potential value of genetic counseling support from the outset and feature genetic counseling services more prominently in program materials.