Literature DB >> 17492498

Disclosure of genetics research results after the death of the patient participant: a qualitative study of the impact on relatives.

E Ormondroyd1, C Moynihan, M Watson, C Foster, S Davolls, A Ardern-Jones, R Eeles.   

Abstract

When a gene mutation is identified in a research study following the death of the study participant, it is not clear whether such information should be made available to relatives. We report here an evaluation of the impact on relatives of being informed of study results that detected pathogenic BRCA2 mutations in a male relative, now deceased, who had early onset (under the age of 55) prostate cancer. The breast and ovarian cancer risk was unknown to the living relatives. Qualitative analysis of interviews with thirteen relatives indicated that those who had a higher risk perception, resulting from an awareness of cancer family history or experiential knowledge of cancer in their family, tended to adjust more easily to the results. All participants believed that genetics research results of clinical significance should be fed back to relatives. Those who were fully aware of the BRCA2 results and implications for themselves felt they had benefited from the information, irrespective of whether or not they had elected for genetic testing, because of the consequent availability of surveillance programs. Initial anxiety upon learning about the BRCA2 result was alleviated by genetic counselling. Factors influencing those who have not engaged with the information included scepticism related to the relative who attempted to inform them, young age and fear of cancer. Those who had not sought genetic counselling did not attempt further dissemination, and some were not undergoing regular screening. Implications for informed consent in genetics research programs, and the requirement for genetic counselling when research results are disclosed, are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17492498     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-007-9088-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  33 in total

1.  Effect of fear-arousing communications.

Authors:  I L JANIS; S FESHBACH
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  1953-01

2.  'Coming down the line'-- patients' understanding of their family history of common chronic disease.

Authors:  Fiona M Walter; Jon Emery
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  Informing one's family about genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC): a retrospective exploratory study.

Authors:  Ilse Mesters; Marlein Ausems; Sophie Eichhorn; Hans Vasen
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Predictive testing for BRCA1 and 2 mutations: a male contribution.

Authors:  P A Daly; C Nolan; A Green; W Ormiston; N Cody; T McDevitt; B O'hIci; D Byrne; E McDermott; D N Carney; N O'Higgins; D E Barton
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  Women with breast cancer: perception of family functioning and adjustment to illness.

Authors:  L C Friedman; P E Baer; D V Nelson; M Lane; F E Smith; R J Dworkin
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1988 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.312

Review 6.  Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Jon Emery; Fiona Walter; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-01-21       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Performance of breast self-examination by women at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  S W Alagna; P J Morokoff; J M Bevett; D M Reddy
Journal:  Women Health       Date:  1987

8.  Research samples from families with genetic diseases: a proposed code of conduct.

Authors:  P S Harper
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-05-22

9.  Perception of risk in women with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  D G Evans; L D Burnell; P Hopwood; A Howell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Factors associated with emotional and behavioural problems among school age children of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  M Watson; I St James-Roberts; S Ashley; C Tilney; B Brougham; L Edwards; C Baldus; G Romer
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-01-16       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  23 in total

1.  Considerations in the construction of an instrument to assess attitudes regarding critical illness gene variation research.

Authors:  Bradley D Freeman; Carie R Kennedy; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Alexander Eastman; Ellen Iverson; Erica Shehane; Aaron Celious; Jennifer Barillas; Brian Clarridge
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 2.  Communicating genetic risk information within families: a review.

Authors:  Mel Wiseman; Caroline Dancyger; Susan Michie
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 3.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

4.  Timing and context: important considerations in the return of genetic results to research participants.

Authors:  Kate A McBride; Nina Hallowell; Martin H N Tattersall; Judy Kirk; Mandy L Ballinger; David M Thomas; Gillian Mitchell; Mary-Anne Young
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-05-26

5.  Influences of race and breast density on related cognitive and emotion outcomes before mandated breast density notification.

Authors:  Mark Manning; Terrance L Albrecht; Zeynep Yilmaz-Saab; Julie Shultz; Kristen Purrington
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2016-10-10       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Return of Genetic Research Results to Participants and Families: IRB Perspectives and Roles.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; P Pearl O'Rourke
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Pediatric Cancer Genetics Research and an Evolving Preventive Ethics Approach for Return of Results after Death of the Subject.

Authors:  Sarah Scollon; Katie Bergstrom; Laurence B McCullough; Amy L McGuire; Stephanie Gutierrez; Robin Kerstein; D Williams Parsons; Sharon E Plon
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 8.  Negative autopsy and sudden cardiac death.

Authors:  Oscar Campuzano; Catarina Allegue; Sara Partemi; Anna Iglesias; Antonio Oliva; Ramon Brugada
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2014-02-16       Impact factor: 2.686

9.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

Authors:  Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  Recommendations for the return of research results to study participants and guardians: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Kathleen Ruccione; Robert J Wells; Jay B Long; Wendy Pelletier; Mary C Hooke; Rebecca D Pentz; Robert B Noll; Justin N Baker; Maura O'Leary; Gregory Reaman; Peter C Adamson; Steven Joffe
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-29       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.