Paul S Appelbaum1, Cameron R Waldman2, Abby Fyer1, Robert Klitzman1, Erik Parens2, Josue Martinez3, W Nicholson Price4, Wendy K Chung5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York, USA. 2. The Hastings Center, Garrison, New York, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 4. Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 5. 1] Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA [2] Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Researchers face the dilemma of how to obtain consent for return of incidental findings from genomic research. We surveyed and interviewed investigators and study participants, with the goal of providing suggestions for how to shape the consent process. METHODS: We performed an online survey of 254 US genetic researchers identified through the NIH RePORTER database, abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting, and qualitative semi-structured interviews with 28 genomic researchers and 20 research participants. RESULTS: Most researchers and participants endorsed disclosure of a wide range of information about return of incidental findings, including risks, benefits, impact on family members, data security, and procedures, for return of results in the event of death or incapacity and for recontact. However, most researchers were willing to devote 30 min or less to this process and expressed concerns that disclosed information would overwhelm participants, a concern shared by many participants themselves. CONCLUSION: There is a disjunction between the views of investigators and participants about the amount of information that should be disclosed and the practical realities of the research setting, including the time available for consent discussions. This strongly suggests the need for innovative approaches to the informed consent process.
PURPOSE: Researchers face the dilemma of how to obtain consent for return of incidental findings from genomic research. We surveyed and interviewed investigators and study participants, with the goal of providing suggestions for how to shape the consent process. METHODS: We performed an online survey of 254 US genetic researchers identified through the NIH RePORTER database, abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting, and qualitative semi-structured interviews with 28 genomic researchers and 20 research participants. RESULTS: Most researchers and participants endorsed disclosure of a wide range of information about return of incidental findings, including risks, benefits, impact on family members, data security, and procedures, for return of results in the event of death or incapacity and for recontact. However, most researchers were willing to devote 30 min or less to this process and expressed concerns that disclosed information would overwhelm participants, a concern shared by many participants themselves. CONCLUSION: There is a disjunction between the views of investigators and participants about the amount of information that should be disclosed and the practical realities of the research setting, including the time available for consent discussions. This strongly suggests the need for innovative approaches to the informed consent process.
Authors: Isaac S Kohane; Kenneth D Mandl; Patrick L Taylor; Ingrid A Holm; Daniel J Nigrin; Louis M Kunkel Journal: Science Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Wayne W Grody; Sarah S Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Christa L Martin; Amy L McGuire; Robert L Nussbaum; Julianne M O'Daniel; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Michael S Watson; Marc S Williams; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 8.822
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
Authors: Georgina Spies; Jolynne Mokaya; Jacqui Steadman; Nicole Schuitmaker; Martin Kidd; S M J Hemmings; Jonathan A Carr; Helena Kuivaniemi; Soraya Seedat Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2020-11-20
Authors: Leandra K Tolusso; Kathleen Collins; Xue Zhang; Jennifer R Holle; C Alexander Valencia; Melanie F Myers Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Julie C Sapp; Jennifer J Johnston; Kate Driscoll; Alexis R Heidlebaugh; Ane Miren Sagardia; D Nadine Dogbe; Kendall L Umstead; Erin Turbitt; Ilias Alevizos; Jeffrey Baron; Carsten Bönnemann; Brian Brooks; Sandra Donkervoort; Youn Hee Jee; W Marston Linehan; Francis J McMahon; Joel Moss; James C Mullikin; Deborah Nielsen; Eileen Pelayo; Alan T Remaley; Richard Siegel; Helen Su; Carlos Zarate; Teri A Manolio; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Julia Wynn; Josue Martinez; Jimmy Duong; Codruta Chiuzan; Jo C Phelan; Abby Fyer; Robert L Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Wendy K Chung Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Ashley N Tomlinson; Debra Skinner; Denise L Perry; Sarah R Scollon; Myra I Roche; Barbara A Bernhardt Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2015-04-26 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Robert C Green; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Paul S Appelbaum; Jonathan S Berg; Barbara A Bernhardt; Leslie G Biesecker; Sawona Biswas; Carrie L Blout; Kevin M Bowling; Kyle B Brothers; Wylie Burke; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Wendy K Chung; Ellen W Clayton; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Levi A Garraway; Jeremy R Garrett; Stacy W Gray; Gail E Henderson; Lucia A Hindorff; Ingrid A Holm; Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Carolyn M Hutter; Pasi A Janne; Steven Joffe; David Kaufman; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Ian D Krantz; Teri A Manolio; Laurence McCullough; Jean McEwen; Amy McGuire; Donna Muzny; Richard M Myers; Deborah A Nickerson; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Gloria M Petersen; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; J Scott Roberts; Dan Robinson; Joseph S Salama; Sarah Scollon; Richard R Sharp; Brian Shirts; Nancy B Spinner; Holly K Tabor; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; David L Veenstra; Nikhil Wagle; Karen Weck; Benjamin S Wilfond; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Susan M Wolf; Julia Wynn; Joon-Ho Yu Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 11.025