Literature DB >> 20829581

Preferences regarding genetic research results: comparing veterans and nonveterans responses.

N Arar1, J Seo, S Lee, H E Abboud, L A Copeland, P Noel, M Parchman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Communicating genetic research results to participants presents ethical challenges. Our objectives were to examine participants' preferences in receiving future genetic research results and to compare preferences reported by veteran and nonveterans participants.
METHODS: Secondary analysis was performed on data collected in 2000-2004 from 1,575 consent forms signed by Mexican-American participants enrolled in 2 genetic family studies (GFS) in San Antonio: The Family Investigation of Nephropathy and Diabetes (FIND) and the Extended FIND (EFIND). The consent forms for these studies contained multiple-choice questions to examine participants' preferences about receiving their (1) clinical lab results and (2) future genetic research results. The FIND and EFIND databases had information on subjects' demographic characteristics and some selected clinical variables. We identified veterans using the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA's) centralized data repository. We compared veterans' and nonveterans' preferences using Student's t test for continuous variables and χ² test for discrete variables. A logistic regression analyzed subjects' preference for receiving their research results, controlling for other socio-demographic and clinical variables.
RESULTS: The sample included 275 (18%) veterans and 1,247 (82%) nonveterans. Our results indicated a strong desire among the majority of participants 1,445 (95%) in getting their clinical lab research results. Likewise, 93% expressed interest in being informed about their future genetic results. There was no significant difference in veterans' and nonveterans' preference to disclosure of the research results (χ² test; p > 0.05). Regression analysis showed no significant relationship (p = 0.449) between the outcome (receiving research results) and veterans' responses after controlling for demographics and educational levels.
CONCLUSION: Participants believed they would prefer receiving their genetic research results. Veterans are similar to nonveterans in their preferences. Offering genetic research results to participants should be based on well defined and structured plans to enhance interpretation of genetic data.
Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20829581      PMCID: PMC3025894          DOI: 10.1159/000317099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  38 in total

1.  Considerations and costs of disclosing study findings to research participants.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Chris Skedgel; Charles Weijer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-04-27       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Measurement in Veterans Affairs Health Services Research: veterans as a special population.

Authors:  Robert O Morgan; Cayla R Teal; Siddharta G Reddy; Marvella E Ford; Carol M Ashton
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Ethical issues associated with conducting genetic family studies of complex disease.

Authors:  Nedal H Arar; Helen Hazuda; Rebecca Steinbach; Mazen Y Arar; Hanna E Abboud
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.797

4.  Medicine. The future of personal genomics.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Mildred K Cho; Sean E McGuire; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-09-21       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  How does the collection of genetic test results affect research participants?

Authors:  David Wendler; Rebecca Pentz
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 6.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: the need to get retail genomics right.

Authors:  A D Schickedanz; R C Herdman
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 6.875

7.  The search for clarity in communicating research results to study participants.

Authors:  D I Shalowitz; F G Miller
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: good, bad or benign?

Authors:  T Caulfield; N M Ries; P N Ray; C Shuman; B Wilson
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2009-11-21       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 9.  Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider.

Authors:  Gaile Renegar; Christopher J Webster; Steffen Stuerzebecher; Lea Harty; Susan E Ide; Beth Balkite; Taryn A Rogalski-Salter; Nadine Cohen; Brian B Spear; Diane M Barnes; Celia Brazell
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.898

10.  Colorectal cancer cases and relatives of cases indicate similar willingness to receive and disclose genetic information.

Authors:  Rachel M Ceballos; Polly A Newcomb; Jeannette M Beasley; Scot Peterson; Allyson Templeton; Julie R Hunt
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2008-09
View more
  13 in total

1.  Veterans' experience in using the online Surgeon General's family health history tool.

Authors:  Nedal Arar; Joann Seo; Hanna E Abboud; Michael Parchman; Polly Noel
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 2.512

2.  Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Mwenza Blell; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lorraine Cowley; Stephanie O M Dyke; Clara Gaff; Robert Green; Alison Hall; Amber L Johns; Bartha M Knoppers; Stephanie Mulrine; Christine Patch; Eva Winkler; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project.

Authors:  Nicole L Allen; Elizabeth W Karlson; Susan Malspeis; Bing Lu; Christine E Seidman; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 7.616

4.  Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results.

Authors:  Karen L Edwards; Deborah Goodman; Catherine O Johnson; Lari Wenzel; Celeste Condit; Deborah Bowen
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  Attitudes of African-American parents about biobank participation and return of results for themselves and their children.

Authors:  Colin M E Halverson; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study.

Authors:  Juli Murphy Bollinger; Joan Scott; Rachel Dvoskin; David Kaufman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 7.  Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 2.512

8.  Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing.

Authors:  Martha F Wright; Katie L Lewis; Tyler C Fisher; Gillian W Hooker; Toby E Emanuel; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research: a conjoint analysis.

Authors:  Juli Murphy Bollinger; John F P Bridges; Ateesha Mohamed; David Kaufman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Family decision maker perspectives on the return of genetic results in biobanking research.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Heather M Traino; Maghboeba Mosavel; Laura Barker; Glencora Gudger; Anita Undale
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.