Literature DB >> 22261760

Incidental findings of therapeutic misconception in biobank-based research.

Colin M E Halverson1, Lainie Friedman Ross.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This article explores expressions of therapeutic misconception (TM) in a deliberative-engagement project focused on the return of aggregate and individual genetic results from biobank-based research.
METHODS: We enrolled 45 self-described African Americans in a deliberative-engagement project to explore their attitudes regarding the return of results from biobank-based research. Four groups of individuals participated in four sessions over 2 days that included both educational and focus-group components.
RESULTS: TM was expressed by individuals from both clinics on each day that they met. Three main typological categories of TM were noted: (i) the reasons for consenting to participate in a biobank, (ii) the conflation of research with clinical care, and (iii) mistrust about the meaning of biomedical research findings.
CONCLUSION: Although trust may explain why some research participants express TM, it was also fueled by mistrust (e.g., a disbelief that a condition described as untreatable was truly untreatable). We also found that TM is not due solely to research participants' misunderstandings but is a bidirectional phenomenon that can be exacerbated by researchers. This finding raises questions about how to engage prospective research participants in the long-term goals of biobank-based research without unintentionally overstating possible short-term clinical benefits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22261760      PMCID: PMC4251740          DOI: 10.1038/gim.2011.50

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  19 in total

1.  The ubiquity and utility of the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  Rebecca Dresser
Journal:  Soc Philos Policy       Date:  2002

2.  Clarifying the ethics of clinical research: a path toward avoiding the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 11.229

3.  Communication and miscommunication in informed consent to research.

Authors:  Pamela Sankar
Journal:  Med Anthropol Q       Date:  2004-12

4.  Obligations in offering to disclose genetic research results.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Charles Weijer
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  Beyond informed consent: the therapeutic misconception and trust.

Authors:  I de Melo-Martín; A Ho
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  The therapeutic misconception, beneficence, and respect.

Authors:  E Fried
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.622

7.  Diverse perceptions of the informed consent process: implications for the recruitment and participation of diverse communities in the National Children's Study.

Authors:  Kimberley D Lakes; Elaine Vaughan; Marissa Jones; Wylie Burke; Dean Baker; James M Swanson
Journal:  Am J Community Psychol       Date:  2012-03

8.  Communication of biobanks' research results: what do (potential) participants want?

Authors:  Tineke M Meulenkamp; Sjef K Gevers; Jasper A Bovenberg; Gerard H Koppelman; Astrid van Hylckama Vlieg; Ellen M A Smets
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.802

9.  Assessing the understanding of biobank participants.

Authors:  K E Ormond; A L Cirino; I B Helenowski; R L Chisholm; W A Wolf
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Factors associated with willingness to provide biospecimens for genetics research among African American cancer survivors.

Authors:  Altovise T Ewing; Nnenna Kalu; Gloria Cain; Lori H Erby; Luisel J Ricks-Santi; Eva Tetteyfio-Kidd Telemaque; Denise M Scott
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-03-14

3.  Returning Results: Let's Be Honest!

Authors:  Bernice S Elger; Eva De Clercq
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-02-24

4.  Factors associated with participation by African Americans in a study of the genetics of glaucoma.

Authors:  Rupin Parikh; Laura O'Keefe; Rebecca Salowe; Makayla Mccoskey; Wei Pan; Prithvi Sankar; Eydie Miller-Ellis; Victoria Addis; Amanda Lehman; Maureen Maguire; Joan O'Brien
Journal:  Ethn Health       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 2.772

5.  Considerations for Returning Research Results to Culturally Diverse Participants and Families of Decedents.

Authors:  Nanibaa A Garrison
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

6.  Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Barbara J Evans; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 3.908

7.  Developing a Process for Returning Medically Actionable Genomic Variants to Latino Patients in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

Authors:  Gabriel Q Shaibi; Iftikhar J Kullo; Davinder P Singh; Richard R Sharp; Eleanna De Filippis; Idali Cuellar; Valentina Hernandez; Sharon Levey; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Janet E Olson; James R Cerhan; Lawrence J Mandarino; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane M Lindor
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Attitudes of African Americans toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

9.  Allocation of Resources to Communication of Research Result Summaries.

Authors:  Julie E Richards; Emmi Bane; Stephanie M Fullerton; Evette J Ludman; Gail Jarvik
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 1.742

10.  Intentions to donate to a biobank in a national sample of African Americans.

Authors:  Jasmine A McDonald; Susan Vadaparampil; Deborah Bowen; Gayenell Magwood; Jihad S Obeid; Melanie Jefferson; Richard Drake; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Chanita Hughes Halbert
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.