Literature DB >> 24642506

Parents' preferences for return of results in pediatric genomic research.

S I Ziniel1, S K Savage, N Huntington, J Amatruda, R C Green, E R Weitzman, P Taylor, I A Holm.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to ascertain parental preferences for the return of genetic research results on themselves and their children and their choices for genetic research results to receive.
METHODS: A mail survey was sent to 6,874 families seen at Boston Children's Hospital. The survey included questions assessing the respondents' preferences regarding the types of result they wanted to receive on themselves and their children.
RESULTS: Most of the 1,060 respondents 'probably' or 'definitely' wanted to receive genetic research results about themselves (84.6%) and their children (88.0%). Among those who wanted to receive results, 83.4% wanted to receive all research results for themselves and 87.8% for their children. When questions about specific types of research results were combined into a composite measure, fewer respondents chose to receive all results for themselves (53.5%) and for their children (56.9%).
CONCLUSION: Although most parents report a desire to receive all research results on a general question, almost half chose to receive only a subset of research results when presented with specific types of research results. Our findings suggest that participants might not understand the implications of their choice of individual research results to receive unless faced with specific types of results.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24642506      PMCID: PMC4073487          DOI: 10.1159/000358539

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  19 in total

1.  Racial and ethnic differences in direct-to-consumer genetic tests awareness in HINTS 2007: sociodemographic and numeracy correlates.

Authors:  Aisha T Langford; Ken Resnicow; J Scott Roberts; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Evaluation of the validity and utility of genetic testing for rare diseases.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Lisa Kalman; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.622

3.  Exploring digital divides: an examination of eHealth technology use in health information seeking, communication and personal health information management in the USA.

Authors:  Mia Liza A Lustria; Scott Alan Smith; Charles C Hinnant
Journal:  Health Informatics J       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  Offering individual genetic research results: context matters.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 17.956

5.  Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: getting it right.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Patrick L Taylor
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 17.956

6.  Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findings.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Steven Joffe; Barbara A Koenig; Barbara B Biesecker; Laurence B McCullough; Jennifer S Blumenthal-Barby; Timothy Caulfield; Sharon F Terry; Robert C Green
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Brittney N Crock; Brian Van Ness; Frances Lawrenz; Jeffrey P Kahn; Laura M Beskow; Mildred K Cho; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Ralph Hall; Judy Illes; Moira Keane; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Isaac S Kohane; Bonnie Leroy; Karen J Maschke; William McGeveran; Pilar Ossorio; Lisa S Parker; Gloria M Petersen; Henry S Richardson; Joan A Scott; Sharon F Terry; Benjamin S Wilfond; Wendy A Wolf
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Jill M Oliver; Melody J Slashinski; Jennifer L Graves; Tao Wang; P Adam Kelly; William Fisher; Ching C Lau; John Goss; Mehmet Okcu; Diane Treadwell-Deering; Alica M Goldman; Jeffrey L Noebels; Susan G Hilsenbeck
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  The Scientific Foundation for personal genomics: recommendations from a National Institutes of Health-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidisciplinary workshop.

Authors:  Muin J Khoury; Colleen M McBride; Sheri D Schully; John P A Ioannidis; W Gregory Feero; A Cecile J W Janssens; Marta Gwinn; Denise G Simons-Morton; Jay M Bernhardt; Michele Cargill; Stephen J Chanock; George M Church; Ralph J Coates; Francis S Collins; Robert T Croyle; Barry R Davis; Gregory J Downing; Amy Duross; Susan Friedman; Mitchell H Gail; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Robert C Green; Mark H Greene; Philip Greenland; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Andro Hsu; Kathy L Hudson; Sharon L R Kardia; Paul L Kimmel; Michael S Lauer; Amy M Miller; Kenneth Offit; David F Ransohoff; J Scott Roberts; Rebekah S Rasooly; Kari Stefansson; Sharon F Terry; Steven M Teutsch; Angela Trepanier; Kay L Wanke; John S Witte; Jianfeng Xu
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information.

Authors:  Morris W Foster; John J Mulvihill; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  20 in total

1.  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

2.  Preferences for the Return of Individual Results From Research on Pediatric Biobank Samples.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; Sarah K Savage; Noelle L Huntington; Elissa R Weitzman; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe L Bacon; Cara N Cacioppo; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  How Much Control Do Children and Adolescents Have over Genomic Testing, Parental Access to Their Results, and Parental Communication of Those Results to Others?

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  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

5.  Adolescent perspectives on the return of individual results in genomic addiction research.

Authors:  Marilyn E Coors; Kristen M Raymond; Shannon K McWilliams; Christian J Hopfer; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson
Journal:  Psychiatr Genet       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.458

6.  Participant Satisfaction With a Preference-Setting Tool for the Return of Individual Research Results in Pediatric Genomic Research.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm; Brittany R Iles; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe L Bacon; Sarah K Savage; Kurt D Christensen; Elissa R Weitzman; Robert C Green; Noelle L Huntington
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  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

8.  A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing to Multigene Panel Testing in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients.

Authors:  Allison L Cirino; Neal K Lakdawala; Barbara McDonough; Lauren Conner; Dale Adler; Mark Weinfeld; Patrick O'Gara; Heidi L Rehm; Kalotina Machini; Matthew Lebo; Carrie Blout; Robert C Green; Calum A MacRae; Christine E Seidman; Carolyn Y Ho
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2017-10

9.  Researchers' Perspectives on Informed Consent and Ethical Review of Biobank Research in South Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Erisa Mwaka; Lyn Horn
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 1.742

10.  Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.