Literature DB >> 21931236

What research participants want to know about genetic research results: the impact of "genetic exceptionalism".

Miguel Ruiz-Canela1, J Ignacio Valle-Mansilla, Daniel P Sulmasy.   

Abstract

The disclosure of individual genetic results has generated an ongoing debate about which rules should be followed. We aimed to identify factors related to research participants' preferences about learning the results of genomic studies using their donated tissue samples. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 279 patients from the United States and Spain who had volunteered to donate a sample for genomic research. Our results show that 48% of research participants would like to be informed about all individual results from future genomic studies using their donated tissue, especially those from the U.S. (71.4%) and those believing that genetic information poses special risks (69.7%). In addition, 16% of research participants considered genetic information to be riskier than other types of personal medical data. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that a high proportion of participants prefer to be informed about their individual results and that there is a higher preference among those research subjects who perceive their genetic information as riskier than other types of personal medical data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21931236     DOI: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.3.39

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  13 in total

1.  Ethical considerations in biobanks: how a public health ethics perspective sheds new light on old controversies.

Authors:  Alice Hawkins Virani; Holly Longstaff
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Preferences for the research use of electronic health records among young adults with fragile X syndrome or autism spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Laura Wagner; MaryKate Frisch; Lauren Turner-Brown; Sara Andrews; Anne Edwards; Rebecca Moultrie; Alexandra Alvarez Rivas; Anne Wheeler; Melissa Raspa
Journal:  Disabil Health J       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 2.554

3.  Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 2.512

4.  'Information is information': a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing.

Authors:  S Daack-Hirsch; M Driessnack; A Hanish; V A Johnson; L L Shah; C M Simon; J K Williams
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Incidental findings: the time is not yet ripe for a policy for biobanks.

Authors:  Jennifer Viberg; Mats G Hansson; Sophie Langenskiöld; Pär Segerdahl
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Implications of the incidentalome for clinical pharmacogenomics.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; Martin Langanke; Pia Erdmann
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.533

7.  Preferences for Accessing Electronic Health Records for Research Purposes: Views of Parents Who Have a Child With a Known or Suspected Genetic Condition.

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

Review 8.  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

Review 9.  Naked bodies, naked genomes: the special (but not exceptional) nature of genomic information.

Authors:  Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Mapping the incidentalome: estimating incidental findings generated through clinical pharmacogenomics testing.

Authors:  Matthew J Westbrook; M Frances Wright; Sara L Van Driest; Tracy L McGregor; Joshua C Denny; Rebecca L Zuvich; Ellen Wright Clayton; Kyle B Brothers
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-11-29       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.