Literature DB >> 20574066

Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: getting it right.

Isaac S Kohane1, Patrick L Taylor.   

Abstract

Recent surveys about participation in cohort studies reconfirm that participants value and desire the return of research results to a degree that is out of step with the restrictive recommendations of various ethics advisory groups, which have historically limited disclosure based on clinician value judgments and the severity and treatability of the disease in question, among other factors. Rather than framing the current inconclusive ethics discussion as a standstill among competing ethical principles and their potential applicability, we introduce a new element, communicability (that is, those properties of a message that will determine how likely it is that its informational intent will be grasped by the study participant), as the subject of empirical research to align participants' goals with beneficent and responsible results reporting. Structural changes in research design, combined with governance changes in assessing impact, allow us to move beyond a binary construction of report/do not report and to create a structure in which the communicability of the message and the participants' preferences are variables in a function that affects results reporting. Here we illustrate this structure and its principles.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20574066     DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3000809

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Transl Med        ISSN: 1946-6234            Impact factor:   17.956


  36 in total

1.  Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility.

Authors:  Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 2.  The long tail and rare disease research: the impact of next-generation sequencing for rare Mendelian disorders.

Authors:  Tony Shen; Ariel Lee; Carol Shen; C Jimmy Lin
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 1.588

Review 3.  Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review.

Authors:  Z Lohn; S Adam; P H Birch; J M Friedman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside.

Authors:  Eric D Green; Mark S Guyer
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-02-10       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 5.  Using electronic health records to drive discovery in disease genomics.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 53.242

6.  Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Christenhusz; Koenraad Devriendt; Hilde Van Esch; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2015-08

7.  Pediatric Issues in Return of Results and Incidental Findings: Weighing Autonomy and Best Interests.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-01-31

8.  Recommendations for ethical approaches to genotype-driven research recruitment.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Stephanie M Fullerton; Emily E Namey; Daniel K Nelson; Arlene M Davis; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 4.132

9.  Return of individual results in epilepsy genomic research: A view from the field.

Authors:  Ruth Ottman; Catharine Freyer; Heather C Mefford; Annapurna Poduri; Daniel H Lowenstein
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 5.864

10.  Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting.

Authors:  Nancy R Downing; Janet K Williams; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Christian M Simon
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-10-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.