Literature DB >> 22011068

Disclosure of individualized research results: a precautionary approach.

David B Resnik1.   

Abstract

Assessing and managing risks to participants is a central point of contention in the debate about disclosing individualized research results. Those who favor disclosure of only clinically significant results think that disclosing clinically insignificant results is risky and costly, and that harm prevention should take precedence over other ethical considerations. Those who favor giving participants the option of full disclosure regard these risks as insubstantial, and think that obligations to benefit participants and promote their autonomy and right to know outweigh the obligation to prevent harm or financial considerations. The risks of disclosing clinically insignificant research results are currently not quantifiable, due to lack of empirical data. The precautionary principle provides some insight into this debate because it applies to decision-making concerning risks that are plausible but not quantifiable. A precautionary approach would favor full disclosure of individualized results with appropriate safeguards to prevent, minimize, or mitigate risks to participants, such as: validating testing methods; informing participants about their options for receiving tests results and the potential benefits and risks related to receiving results; assessing participants' comfort with handling uncertainty; providing counseling and advice to participants; following-up with individuals who receive tests results; and forming community advisory boards to help investigators deal with issues related to disclosure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22011068      PMCID: PMC3953618          DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2011.622172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   2.622


  38 in total

1.  What makes clinical research ethical?

Authors:  E J Emanuel; D Wendler; C Grady
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 May 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Learning from the law to address uncertainty in the precautionary principle.

Authors:  C F Cranor
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials.

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum; Thomas Grisso; Michelle Renaud
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; L H Roth; C W Lidz; P Benson; W Winslade
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.683

5.  Understanding preferences for disclosure of individual biomarker results among participants in a longitudinal birth cohort.

Authors:  Stephen E Wilson; Erin R Baker; Anthony C Leonard; Mark H Eckman; Bruce P Lanphear
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Yann Joly; Jacques Simard; Francine Durocher
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Improving disclosure and consent: "is it safe?": new ethics for reporting personal exposures to environmental chemicals.

Authors:  Julia Green Brody; Rachel Morello-Frosch; Phil Brown; Ruthann A Rudel; Rebecca Gasior Altman; Margaret Frye; Cheryl A Osimo; Carla Pérez; Liesel M Seryak
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2007-07-31       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 8.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  Sharing unexpected biomarker results with study participants.

Authors:  Ann D Hernick; M Kathryn Brown; Susan M Pinney; Frank M Biro; Kathleen M Ball; Robert L Bornschein
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  The precautionary principle in environmental science.

Authors:  D Kriebel; J Tickner; P Epstein; J Lemons; R Levins; E L Loechler; M Quinn; R Rudel; T Schettler; M Stoto
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  3 in total

1.  Potentials and Challenges of the Health Data Cooperative Model.

Authors:  Ilse van Roessel; Matthias Reumann; Angela Brand
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Clinical verification of genetic results returned to research participants: findings from a Colon Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Mercy Y Laurino; Anjali R Truitt; Lederle Tenney; Douglass Fisher; Noralane M Lindor; David Veenstra; Gail P Jarvik; Polly A Newcomb; Stephanie M Fullerton
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 2.183

3.  Amnestic MCI patients' experiences after disclosure of their amyloid PET result in a research context.

Authors:  Gwendolien Vanderschaeghe; Jolien Schaeverbeke; Rose Bruffaerts; Rik Vandenberghe; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Alzheimers Res Ther       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 6.982

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.