Literature DB >> 24616381

Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care.

Wylie Burke, Barbara J Evans, Gail P Jarvik.   

Abstract

The return of individual results to research participants has been vigorously debated. Consensus statements indicate that researchers and bioethicists consider the return of research results most appropriate when the findings are clinically relevant. Even when clinical utility is the motivator, however, the return of individual research results is not equivalent to clinical care. There are important differences in the domains of research and medical care, both from a legal standpoint and in terms of the ethical responsibilities of clinicians and researchers. As a corollary, researchers risk promoting a therapeutic misconception if they create quasi-clinical settings for return of clinically relevant research results. Rather, efforts should be focused on clarity in the provision of research results, appropriate caveats and, most important, appropriate referrals when the results may be helpful to consider in medical care.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CLIA; HIPAA; genetic research results; medical practice

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24616381      PMCID: PMC4078921          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31393

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet        ISSN: 1552-4868            Impact factor:   3.908


  43 in total

1.  Considerations and costs of disclosing study findings to research participants.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Chris Skedgel; Charles Weijer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-04-27       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

3.  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

4.  A legal duty to disclose individual research findings to research subjects?

Authors:  Matthew P Gordon
Journal:  Food Drug Law J       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 0.619

Review 5.  Community equipoise and the architecture of clinical research.

Authors:  J H Karlawish; J Lantos
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 1.284

6.  Patient-physician covenant.

Authors:  R Crawshaw; D E Rogers; E D Pellegrino; R J Bulger; G D Lundberg; L R Bristow; C K Cassel; J A Barondess
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-05-17       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Maternal perspectives on the return of genetic results: context matters.

Authors:  Kimberley D Lakes; Elaine Vaughan; Amy Lemke; Marissa Jones; Timothy Wigal; Dean Baker; James M Swanson; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 2.802

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

9.  Incidental findings of therapeutic misconception in biobank-based research.

Authors:  Colin M E Halverson; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Genetics researchers' and IRB professionals' attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis.

Authors:  Karen L Edwards; Amy A Lemke; Susan B Trinidad; Susan M Lewis; Helene Starks; Katherine W Snapinn; Mary Quinn Griffin; Georgia L Wiesner; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  53 in total

1.  Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Rebecca Branum; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen; Susan A Berry; Laura M Beskow; Mary B Daly; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green; Bonnie S LeRoy; Noralane M Lindor; P Pearl O'Rourke; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mark A Rothstein; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; John M Conley; Arlene M Davis; Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; R Jean Cadigan
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

3.  Leaves imitate trees: Minnesota Hmong concepts of heredity and applications to genomics research.

Authors:  Kathleen A Culhane-Pera; MaiKia Moua; Pachia Vue; Kang Xiaaj; May Xia Lo; Robert J Straka
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-11-07

4.  Mapping the Ethics of Translational Genomics: Situating Return of Results and Navigating the Research-Clinical Divide.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Wylie Burke; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

5.  Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 2.512

6.  Return of individual results in epilepsy genomic research: A view from the field.

Authors:  Ruth Ottman; Catharine Freyer; Heather C Mefford; Annapurna Poduri; Daniel H Lowenstein
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 5.864

7.  The ethics of HIV "cure" research: what can we learn from consent forms?

Authors:  Gail E Henderson
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.205

8.  Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

Authors:  Teddy D Warner; Carol J Weil; Christopher Andry; Howard B Degenholtz; Lisa Parker; Latarsha J Carithers; Michelle Feige; David Wendler; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

Authors:  Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  "Not Tied Up Neatly with a Bow": Professionals' Challenging Cases in Informed Consent for Genomic Sequencing.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.