PURPOSE: We undertook this investigation to explore the manner in which surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients perceived genetic data collected in the context of clinical investigation. METHODS: Surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients cared for in intensive care units of two urban hospitals participated in focus groups designed to explore perceptions regarding gene variation research. RESULTS: Surrogate decision makers were generally familiar with genetic concepts and reported that they could provide an informed opinion regarding permitting (or declining) the participation of their loved ones in gene variation research. Respondents perceived the risk associated with this type of research largely as the risk associated with acquiring the sample (i.e., whether it involved an invasive procedure or not) but appreciated that genetic samples could provide information not readily obtained from nongenetic sources. Concerns about potential misuse of genetic data largely centered on misconduct, paternity, forensic applications, and insurance and employment discrimination. Although surrogate decision makers expressed that their loved ones would have interest in return of results and being recontacted for future use, these interests were secondary to confidentiality concerns. CONCLUSION: Respondents perceived genetic and nongenetic data as comparable. Informed consent processes that provide clear information regarding confidentiality protections, specimen handling, and parameters for future use may enhance enrollment.Genet Med 2013:15(5):368-373.
PURPOSE: We undertook this investigation to explore the manner in which surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients perceived genetic data collected in the context of clinical investigation. METHODS: Surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients cared for in intensive care units of two urban hospitals participated in focus groups designed to explore perceptions regarding gene variation research. RESULTS: Surrogate decision makers were generally familiar with genetic concepts and reported that they could provide an informed opinion regarding permitting (or declining) the participation of their loved ones in gene variation research. Respondents perceived the risk associated with this type of research largely as the risk associated with acquiring the sample (i.e., whether it involved an invasive procedure or not) but appreciated that genetic samples could provide information not readily obtained from nongenetic sources. Concerns about potential misuse of genetic data largely centered on misconduct, paternity, forensic applications, and insurance and employment discrimination. Although surrogate decision makers expressed that their loved ones would have interest in return of results and being recontacted for future use, these interests were secondary to confidentiality concerns. CONCLUSION: Respondents perceived genetic and nongenetic data as comparable. Informed consent processes that provide clear information regarding confidentiality protections, specimen handling, and parameters for future use may enhance enrollment.Genet Med 2013:15(5):368-373.
Authors: Bradley D Freeman; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Carie R Kennedy; Jessica LeBlanc; Alexander Eastman; Jennifer Barillas; Catherine M Wittgen; Kathryn Indsey; Rumel S Mahmood; Brian R Clarridge Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2015-05-01
Authors: Matthew D Burstein; Jill Oliver Robinson; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Amy L McGuire; Ching C Lau Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Ellen Iverson; Aaron Celious; Carie R Kennedy; Erica Shehane; Alexander Eastman; Victoria Warren; Bradley D Freeman Journal: Intensive Crit Care Nurs Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 3.072
Authors: Ellen Iverson; Aaron Celious; Erica Shehane; Mandy Oerke; Victoria Warren; Alexander Eastman; Carie R Kennedy; Bradley D Freeman Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Laura A Siminoff; Heather M Traino; Maghboeba Mosavel; Laura Barker; Glencora Gudger; Anita Undale Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 8.822