Literature DB >> 24943692

Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project.

Nicole L Allen1, Elizabeth W Karlson2, Susan Malspeis1, Bing Lu2, Christine E Seidman2, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of participants in the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity biobank. Respondents were surveyed about preferences for disclosure, importance of disclosure, communication of results with practitioners, and sharing of results after respondents' death. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess independent sociodemographic and clinical predictors of disclosure preferences. Data collection occurred from June 6, 2011, to June 25, 2012.
RESULTS: Among 1154 biobank participants, 555 (48%) responded. Most thought that research result disclosure was important (90%). Preference for disclosure varied, depending on availability of disease treatment (90% vs 64%, P<.001), high vs low disease risk (79% vs 66%, P<.001), and serious vs mild disease (83% vs 68%, P<.001). More than half of respondents (57%) preferred disclosure even when there is uncertainty about the results' meaning, and 87% preferred disclosure if the disease is highly heritable. Older age was positively associated with interest in disclosure, whereas female sex, nonwhite race, diabetes mellitus, and depression and/or anxiety were negatively associated with disclosure. More than half of respondents (52%) would want their results returned to their nearest biological relative after death.
CONCLUSIONS: OurGenes biobank participants report strong preferences for disclosure of research results, and most would designate a relative to receive results after death. Participant preferences for serious vs mild disease, high vs low disease risk, and availability of disease treatment differed significantly. Future research should consider family members' preferences for receiving research results from enrolled research participants.
Copyright © 2014 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24943692      PMCID: PMC4148696          DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.03.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc        ISSN: 0025-6196            Impact factor:   7.616


  31 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.  Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Jennifer R Fishman; Marcie A Lambrix
Journal:  New Genet Soc       Date:  2010-09-01

3.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Disclosing individual genetic research results to deceased participants' relatives by means of a qualified disclosure policy.

Authors:  Annelien L Bredenoord; Johannes J M van Delden
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  Researcher perspectives on disclosure of incidental findings in genetic research.

Authors:  Meredith C Meacham; Helene Starks; Wylie Burke; Kelly Edwards
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Researcher practices on returning genetic research results.

Authors:  Christopher Heaney; Genevieve Tindall; Joe Lucas; Susanne B Haga
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2010-10-12

Review 7.  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

8.  An empirical examination of the management of return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks.

Authors:  Gina Johnson; Frances Lawrenz; Mao Thao
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Challenges in creating an opt-in biobank with a registrar-based consent process and a commercial EHR.

Authors:  Keith Marsolo; Jeremy Corsmo; Michael G Barnes; Carrie Pollick; Jamie Chalfin; Jeremy Nix; Christopher Smith; Rajesh Ganta
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research.

Authors:  Lynn G Dressler; Sondra Smolek; Roselle Ponsaran; Janell M Markey; Helene Starks; Nancy Gerson; Susan Lewis; Nancy Press; Eric Juengst; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  27 in total

1.  Preferences Regarding Return of Genomic Results to Relatives of Research Participants, Including after Participant Death: Empirical Results from a Cancer Biobank.

Authors:  Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Gloria M Petersen; Susan M Wolf; Kari G Chaffee; Marguerite E Robinson; Deborah R Gordon; Noralane M Lindor; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  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

Review 3.  Health professionals' opinions on supporting a cancer biobank: identification of barriers to combat biobanking pitfalls.

Authors:  Nicole J Caixeiro; Hei Lan Byun; Joseph Descallar; Janelle V Levesque; Paul de Souza; Cheok Soon Lee
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Pediatric Cancer Genetics Research and an Evolving Preventive Ethics Approach for Return of Results after Death of the Subject.

Authors:  Sarah Scollon; Katie Bergstrom; Laurence B McCullough; Amy L McGuire; Stephanie Gutierrez; Robin Kerstein; D Williams Parsons; Sharon E Plon
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

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

Review 6.  Building the foundation for genomics in precision medicine.

Authors:  Samuel J Aronson; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Engaging Hmong adults in genomic and pharmacogenomic research: Toward reducing health disparities in genomic knowledge using a community-based participatory research approach.

Authors:  Kathleen A Culhane-Pera; Robert J Straka; MaiKia Moua; Youssef Roman; Pachia Vue; Kang Xiaaj; May Xia Lo; Mai Lor
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-01-10

8.  Great expectations: patient perspectives and anticipated utility of non-diagnostic genomic-sequencing results.

Authors:  Robyn Hylind; Maureen Smith; Laura Rasmussen-Torvik; Sharon Aufox
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-06-27

9.  In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research.

Authors:  Maya Sabatello; Yuan Zhang; Ying Chen; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 10.  Confidentiality & the Risk of Genetic Discrimination: What Surgeons Need to Know.

Authors:  Amanda Gammon; Deborah W Neklason
Journal:  Surg Oncol Clin N Am       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 3.495

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.