AIMS: Storing tissue samples for future genetic testing raises practical and ethical issues regarding informed consent and confidentiality. Employed adults' views on this are uniquely valuable but have been little studied. METHODS: This study surveyed 570 employees at a U.S. defense laboratory and an academic medical center regarding their willingness to have tissue stored for future genetic testing, interest in receiving results of future testing and being contacted for consent for future testing, and acceptability of various tissue-storage options. RESULTS: Respondents were somewhat interested in providing samples and significantly less interested in providing traceable samples than untraceable samples. Workers with concerns about having a genetic illness were more interested in providing tissue for future testing. Most participants expressed strong desire to be asked before future genotyping and to receive those test results. Respondents preferred that tissue samples be stored with their doctor, local medical facility, or local research university rather than with their employer, a government agency, or an insurance company. CONCLUSIONS: Employed adults valued future genetic testing as being important to their well-being and strongly preferred reconsenting for future use of stored tissue. These data provide a baseline to measure potential changes in workers' attitudes since the passage of the U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in 2008.
AIMS: Storing tissue samples for future genetic testing raises practical and ethical issues regarding informed consent and confidentiality. Employed adults' views on this are uniquely valuable but have been little studied. METHODS: This study surveyed 570 employees at a U.S. defense laboratory and an academic medical center regarding their willingness to have tissue stored for future genetic testing, interest in receiving results of future testing and being contacted for consent for future testing, and acceptability of various tissue-storage options. RESULTS: Respondents were somewhat interested in providing samples and significantly less interested in providing traceable samples than untraceable samples. Workers with concerns about having a genetic illness were more interested in providing tissue for future testing. Most participants expressed strong desire to be asked before future genotyping and to receive those test results. Respondents preferred that tissue samples be stored with their doctor, local medical facility, or local research university rather than with their employer, a government agency, or an insurance company. CONCLUSIONS: Employed adults valued future genetic testing as being important to their well-being and strongly preferred reconsenting for future use of stored tissue. These data provide a baseline to measure potential changes in workers' attitudes since the passage of the U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in 2008.
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
Authors: Sara M Andrews; Melissa Raspa; Anne Edwards; Rebecca Moultrie; Lauren Turner-Brown; Laura Wagner; Alexandra Alvarez Rivas; Mary Katherine Frisch; Anne C Wheeler Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: James M Dubois; Brendolyn Bailey-Burch; Dan Bustillos; Jean Campbell; Linda Cottler; Celia B Fisher; Whitney B Hadley; Jinger G Hoop; Laura Roberts; Erica K Salter; Joan E Sieber; Richard D Stevenson Journal: Curr Opin Psychiatry Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.741
Authors: Melissa Raspa; Ryan S Paquin; Derek S Brown; Sara Andrews; Anne Edwards; Rebecca Moultrie; Laura Wagner; MaryKate Frisch; Lauren Turner-Brown; Anne C Wheeler Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Melissa Raspa; Rebecca Moultrie; Laura Wagner; Anne Edwards; Sara Andrews; Mary Katherine Frisch; Lauren Turner-Brown; Anne Wheeler Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Nanibaa' A Garrison; Nila A Sathe; Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Ingrid A Holm; Saskia C Sanderson; Maureen E Smith; Melissa L McPheeters; Ellen W Clayton Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 8.822