Christian Simon1, Laura A Shinkunas, Debra Brandt, Janet K Williams. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver School of Medicine, 500 Newton Drive, 1-103 MEB, Iowa City, IA 52242-1190, USA. christian-simon@uiowa.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genomic research is challenging the tradition of informed consent. Genomic researchers in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe are encouraged to use informed consent to address the prospect of disclosing individual research results (IRRs) to study participants. In the USA, no national policy exists to direct this use of informed consent, and it is unclear how local institutional review boards (IRBs) may want researchers to respond. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: To explore publicly accessible IRB websites for guidance in this area, using summative content analysis. FINDINGS: Three types of research results were addressed in 45 informed consent templates and instructions from 20 IRBs based at centres conducting genomic research: (1) IRRs in general, (2) incidental findings (IFs) and (3) a broad and unspecified category of 'significant new findings' (SNFs). IRRs were more frequently referenced than IFs or SNFs. Most documents stated that access to IRRs would not be an option for research participants. These non-disclosure statements were found to coexist in some documents with statements that SNFs would be disclosed to participants if related to their willingness to participate in research. The median readability of template language on IRRs, IFs and SNFs exceeded a ninth-grade level. CONCLUSION: IRB guidance may downplay the possibility of IFs and contain conflicting messages on IRR non-disclosure and SNF disclosure. IRBs may need to clarify why separate IRR and SNF language should appear in the same consent document. The extent of these issues, nationally and internationally, needs to be determined.
BACKGROUND: Genomic research is challenging the tradition of informed consent. Genomic researchers in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe are encouraged to use informed consent to address the prospect of disclosing individual research results (IRRs) to study participants. In the USA, no national policy exists to direct this use of informed consent, and it is unclear how local institutional review boards (IRBs) may want researchers to respond. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: To explore publicly accessible IRB websites for guidance in this area, using summative content analysis. FINDINGS: Three types of research results were addressed in 45 informed consent templates and instructions from 20 IRBs based at centres conducting genomic research: (1) IRRs in general, (2) incidental findings (IFs) and (3) a broad and unspecified category of 'significant new findings' (SNFs). IRRs were more frequently referenced than IFs or SNFs. Most documents stated that access to IRRs would not be an option for research participants. These non-disclosure statements were found to coexist in some documents with statements that SNFs would be disclosed to participants if related to their willingness to participate in research. The median readability of template language on IRRs, IFs and SNFs exceeded a ninth-grade level. CONCLUSION: IRB guidance may downplay the possibility of IFs and contain conflicting messages on IRR non-disclosure and SNF disclosure. IRBs may need to clarify why separate IRR and SNF language should appear in the same consent document. The extent of these issues, nationally and internationally, needs to be determined.
Authors: Ebony B Bookman; Aleisha A Langehorne; John H Eckfeldt; Kathleen C Glass; Gail P Jarvik; Michael Klag; Greg Koski; Arno Motulsky; Benjamin Wilfond; Teri A Manolio; Richard R Fabsitz; Russell V Luepker Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: J Scott Roberts; David I Shalowitz; Kurt D Christensen; Jessica N Everett; Scott Y H Kim; Leon Raskin; Stephen B Gruber Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2010-12
Authors: Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; David I Shalowitz; Jessica N Everett; Scott Y H Kim; Leon Raskin; Stephen B Gruber Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Andrew D Johnson; Anupama Bhimavarapu; Emelia J Benjamin; Caroline Fox; Daniel Levy; Gail P Jarvik; Christopher J O'Donnell Journal: Genet Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: K A Kaphingst; J Ivanovich; B B Biesecker; R Dresser; J Seo; L G Dressler; P J Goodfellow; M S Goodman Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 4.438
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: Debra S Brandt; Laura Shinkunas; Stephen L Hillis; Sandra E Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Nancy R Downing; Megan F Liu; Lisa L Shah; Janet K Williams; Christian M Simon Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 2.537