PURPOSE: Little is known about parental attitudes toward return of individual research results (IRRs) in pediatric genomic research. The aim of this study was to understand the views of the parents who enrolled their children in a genomic repository in which IRRs will be returned. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with parents of children with developmental disorders enrolled in the Gene Partnership (GP), a genomic research repository that offers to return IRRs, to learn about their understanding of the GP, motivations for enrolling their children, and expectations regarding the return of IRRs. RESULTS: Parents hoped to receive IRRs that would help them better understand their children's condition(s). They understood that this outcome was unlikely, but hoped that their children's participation in the GP would contribute to scientific knowledge. Most parents wanted to receive all IRRs about their child, even for diseases that were severe and untreatable, citing reasons of personal utility. Parents preferred electronic delivery of the results and wanted to designate their preferences regarding what information they would receive. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for researchers to understand participant expectations in enrolling in a research repository that offers to disclose children's IRRs in order to effectively communicate the implications to parents during the consenting process.
PURPOSE: Little is known about parental attitudes toward return of individual research results (IRRs) in pediatric genomic research. The aim of this study was to understand the views of the parents who enrolled their children in a genomic repository in which IRRs will be returned. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with parents of children with developmental disorders enrolled in the Gene Partnership (GP), a genomic research repository that offers to return IRRs, to learn about their understanding of the GP, motivations for enrolling their children, and expectations regarding the return of IRRs. RESULTS: Parents hoped to receive IRRs that would help them better understand their children's condition(s). They understood that this outcome was unlikely, but hoped that their children's participation in the GP would contribute to scientific knowledge. Most parents wanted to receive all IRRs about their child, even for diseases that were severe and untreatable, citing reasons of personal utility. Parents preferred electronic delivery of the results and wanted to designate their preferences regarding what information they would receive. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for researchers to understand participant expectations in enrolling in a research repository that offers to disclose children's IRRs in order to effectively communicate the implications to parents during the consenting process.
Authors: C V Fernandez; D Santor; C Weijer; C Strahlendorf; A Moghrabi; R Pentz; J Gao; E Kodish Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Catharine B Stack; Neda Gharani; Erynn S Gordon; Tara Schmidlen; Michael F Christman; Margaret A Keller Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Mary M Jenkins; Sonja A Rasmussen; Cynthia A Moore; Margaret A Honein Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Conrad Vincent Fernandez; Jun Gao; Caron Strahlendorf; Albert Moghrabi; Rebecca Davis Pentz; Raymond Carlton Barfield; Justin Nathaniel Baker; Darcy Santor; Charles Weijer; Eric Kodish Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kurt D Christensen; Sarah K Savage; Noelle L Huntington; Elissa R Weitzman; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe L Bacon; Cara N Cacioppo; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Marilyn E Coors; Kristen M Raymond; Shannon K McWilliams; Christian J Hopfer; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson Journal: Psychiatr Genet Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 2.458
Authors: Ingrid A Holm; Brittany R Iles; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe L Bacon; Sarah K Savage; Kurt D Christensen; Elissa R Weitzman; Robert C Green; Noelle L Huntington Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Michelle L McGowan; Cynthia A Prows; Melissa DeJonckheere; William B Brinkman; Lisa Vaughn; Melanie F Myers Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 1.742