Literature DB >> 23590238

'Information is information': a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing.

S Daack-Hirsch1, M Driessnack, A Hanish, V A Johnson, L L Shah, C M Simon, J K Williams.   

Abstract

The potential for genomic incidental findings is increasing with the use of genome-based testing. At the same time approaches to clinical decision making are shifting to shared decision-making models involving both the healthcare community and the public. The public's voice has been nearly absent in discussions on managing incidental findings. We conducted nine focus groups and nine interviews (n = 63) with a broad cross-section of lay public groups to elucidate public viewpoints on incidental findings that could occur as a result of genome-based testing in clinical and research situations. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Participants wanted incidental findings disclosed to them whether or not these were clinical or research findings. Participants used different terms to define and describe incidental findings; they wanted to know that incidental findings are possible and be given a choice to learn about them. Personal utility was an important reason for disclosure, and participants believed that managing information is a shared responsibility between professionals and themselves. Broad public input is needed in order to understand and incorporate the public's perspective on management of incidental findings as disclosure guidelines, and policies are developed in clinical and research settings.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23590238      PMCID: PMC4334458          DOI: 10.1111/cge.12167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  37 in total

1.  What research participants want to know about genetic research results: the impact of "genetic exceptionalism".

Authors:  Miguel Ruiz-Canela; J Ignacio Valle-Mansilla; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  The incidental discovery of nonpaternity through genetic carrier screening: an exploration of lay attitudes.

Authors:  Lyn Turney
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2005-05

3.  The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Daniel R Masys; Russ B Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Public expectations for return of results--time to stop being paternalistic?

Authors:  Conrad Fernandez
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results.

Authors:  J O'Daniel; S B Haga
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 6.  Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

Authors:  France Légaré; Stéphane Ratté; Dawn Stacey; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Karine Gravel; Ian D Graham; Stéphane Turcotte
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-05-12

7.  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

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.  Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics.

Authors:  Mildred K Cho
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

10.  The disclosure of incidental genomic findings: an "ethically important moment" in pediatric research and practice.

Authors:  Martha Driessnack; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Nancy Downing; Alyson Hanish; Lisa L Shah; Mohammed Alasagheirin; Christian M Simon; Janet K Williams
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-04-10
View more
  30 in total

1.  Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences.

Authors:  Ana P M Pinheiro; Rachel H Pocock; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Margie D Dixon; Walid L Shaib; Suresh S Ramalingam; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  The importance of patient engagement.

Authors:  Janet K Williams; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Nancy R Downing; Christian Simon
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2013-08-13

Review 3.  Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Jennefer N Kohler; Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Canadian Research Ethics Board Leadership Attitudes to the Return of Genetic Research Results to Individuals and Their Families.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 5.  Management and return of incidental genomic findings in clinical trials.

Authors:  C Ayuso; J M Millan; R Dal-Re
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 3.550

6.  Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences.

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

7.  Factors Associated With End-of-Life Planning in Huntington Disease.

Authors:  Nancy R Downing; Siera Goodnight; Sena Chae; Joel S Perlmutter; Michael McCormack; Elizabeth Hahn; Stacey K Barton; Noelle Carlozzi
Journal:  Am J Hosp Palliat Care       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 2.500

8.  Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Dean A Regier; Stuart J Peacock; Reka Pataky; Kimberly van der Hoek; Gail P Jarvik; Jeffrey Hoch; David Veenstra
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective.

Authors:  Lisa Eckstein; Margaret Otlowski
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 1.352

10.  A Clinical Service to Support the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings in Human Research.

Authors:  Andrew J Darnell; Howard Austin; David A Bluemke; Richard O Cannon; Kenneth Fischbeck; William Gahl; David Goldman; Christine Grady; Mark H Greene; Steven M Holland; Sara Chandros Hull; Forbes D Porter; David Resnik; Wendy S Rubinstein; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 11.025

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.