Literature DB >> 24033230

Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children.

J C Sapp1, D Dong, C Stark, L E Ivey, G Hooker, L G Biesecker, B B Biesecker.   

Abstract

Exome sequencing is being offered for children with undiagnosed conditions to identify a primary (causative) variant. Parental preferences for learning secondary (incidental) variants are largely unexplored. Our objective was to characterize values and beliefs that shape parents' preferences for learning their children's sequencing results. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 parents of 13 minor probands with a variety of rare genetic conditions. Parents were asked to discuss their preferences to receive four types of results from exome sequencing. Many parents preferred to receive all types of results. Parents had the most positive attitudes toward learning about variants that predispose to disorders treatable or preventable in childhood. They had reservations about learning about predispositions for untreatable adult-onset conditions and carrier status for recessive conditions. Parents described their success in coping with their child's condition as evidence for an ability to manage any additional negative health information. They felt responsible for learning about secondary variants, desiring a gain in control over their child's health. Our findings suggest that investigators should incorporate parents' perceptions of the value in receiving secondary variant information about their children when designing studies employing exome sequencing. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genome sequencing; incidental findings; patient preferences; theory of reasoned action

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24033230      PMCID: PMC3930614          DOI: 10.1111/cge.12254

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


  23 in total

1.  Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility.

Authors:  Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  Parent opinions regarding the genetic testing of minors for BRCA1/2.

Authors:  Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Brian Egleston; Colleen Burke Sands; Tianyu Li; Helen Schmidheiser; Maia Feigon; Comfort N Ibe; Fay J Hlubocky; Kisha Hope; Sarah Jackson; Melanie Corbman; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Mary Daly; Christopher K Daugherty
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-06-21       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy.

Authors:  Annelien L Bredenoord; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Johannes J M Van Delden
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 4.878

4.  What is a meaningful result? Disclosing the results of genomic research in autism to research participants.

Authors:  Fiona Alice Miller; Robin Zoe Hayeems; Jessica Peace Bytautas
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative.

Authors:  Misha Angrist
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.512

6.  Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study.

Authors:  Flavia M Facio; Haley Eidem; Tyler Fisher; Stephanie Brooks; Amy Linn; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Parent perspectives on pediatric genetic research and implications for genotype-driven research recruitment.

Authors:  Holly K Tabor; Tracy Brazg; Julia Crouch; Emily E Namey; Stephanie M Fullerton; Laura M Beskow; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.742

8.  The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Yann Joly; Jacques Simard; Francine Durocher
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 9.  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

10.  Drivers and barriers to patient participation in RCTs.

Authors:  V Jenkins; V Farewell; D Farewell; J Darmanin; J Wagstaff; C Langridge; L Fallowfield
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  55 in total

1.  Rapid clinical exome sequencing in a pediatric ICU: Genetic counselor impacts and challenges.

Authors:  Sarah V Clowes Candadai; Megan C Sikes; Jenny M Thies; Amanda S Freed; James T Bennett
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Pediatric Issues in Return of Results and Incidental Findings: Weighing Autonomy and Best Interests.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-01-31

3.  Much ado about nothing: A qualitative study of the experiences of an average-risk population receiving results of exome sequencing.

Authors:  Shannon Rego; Orit Dagan-Rosenfeld; Stephanie A Bivona; Michael P Snyder; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Pathogenic variants for Mendelian and complex traits in exomes of 6,517 European and African Americans: implications for the return of incidental results.

Authors:  Holly K Tabor; Paul L Auer; Seema M Jamal; Jessica X Chong; Joon-Ho Yu; Adam S Gordon; Timothy A Graubert; Christopher J O'Donnell; Stephen S Rich; Deborah A Nickerson; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: the emerging issue of incidental findings.

Authors:  Amanda L Bergner; Juli Bollinger; Karen S Raraigh; Crystal Tichnell; Brittney Murray; Carrie Lynn Blout; Aida Bytyci Telegrafi; Cynthia A James
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Research participants' attitudes towards the confidentiality of genomic sequence information.

Authors:  Leila Jamal; Julie C Sapp; Katie Lewis; Tatiane Yanes; Flavia M Facio; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing?

Authors:  Cynthia M Khan; Christine Rini; Barbara A Bernhardt; J Scott Roberts; Kurt D Christensen; James P Evans; Kyle B Brothers; Myra I Roche; Jonathan S Berg; Gail E Henderson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Parent and public interest in whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  Daniel S Dodson; Aaron J Goldenberg; Matthew M Davis; Dianne C Singer; Beth A Tarini
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.000

9.  Parental Perception of Self-Empowerment in Pediatric Pharmacogenetic Testing: The Reactions of Parents to the Communication of Actual and Hypothetical CYP2D6 Test Results.

Authors:  Sarah Adelsperger; Cynthia A Prows; Melanie F Myers; Cassandra L Perry; Ariel Chandler; Ingrid A Holm; John A Lynch
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2016-08-30

10.  Whole-exome sequencing in pediatrics: parents' considerations toward return of unsolicited findings for their child.

Authors:  Candice Cornelis; Aad Tibben; Wybo Dondorp; Mieke van Haelst; Annelien L Bredenoord; Nine Knoers; Marcus Düwell; Ineke Bolt; Marieke van Summeren
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.