Paul S Appelbaum1, Abby Fyer1, Robert L Klitzman1, Josue Martinez2, Erik Parens3, Yuan Zhang4, Wendy K Chung5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 3. The Hastings Center, Garrison, New York, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, 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: Previous studies have suggested that genomic investigators generally favor offering to return at least some secondary findings to participants and believe that participants' preferences should determine the information they receive. We surveyed investigators to ascertain their views on four models of informed consent for this purpose: traditional consent, staged consent, mandatory return, and outsourced consent. METHODS: We performed an online survey of the views regarding return of secondary results held by 198 US genetic researchers drawn from our subject pool for an earlier study. Potential participants were identified through the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database and abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting. RESULTS: Under circumstances in which resource constraints are not an issue, approximately a third of respondents would endorse either staged consent or traditional consent; outsourced consent and mandatory return are favored by only a small minority. However, taking resource constraints into account, roughly half the sample would favor traditional consent, with support for staged consent dropping to 13%. CONCLUSION: Despite their liabilities, traditional approaches to consent are seen as the most viable under current circumstances. However, there is considerable interest in staged consent, assuming the infrastructure to support it can be provided.
PURPOSE: Previous studies have suggested that genomic investigators generally favor offering to return at least some secondary findings to participants and believe that participants' preferences should determine the information they receive. We surveyed investigators to ascertain their views on four models of informed consent for this purpose: traditional consent, staged consent, mandatory return, and outsourced consent. METHODS: We performed an online survey of the views regarding return of secondary results held by 198 US genetic researchers drawn from our subject pool for an earlier study. Potential participants were identified through the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database and abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting. RESULTS: Under circumstances in which resource constraints are not an issue, approximately a third of respondents would endorse either staged consent or traditional consent; outsourced consent and mandatory return are favored by only a small minority. However, taking resource constraints into account, roughly half the sample would favor traditional consent, with support for staged consent dropping to 13%. CONCLUSION: Despite their liabilities, traditional approaches to consent are seen as the most viable under current circumstances. However, there is considerable interest in staged consent, assuming the infrastructure to support it can be provided.
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
Authors: Annelien L Bredenoord; Hester Y Kroes; Edwin Cuppen; Michael Parker; Johannes J M van Delden Journal: Trends Genet Date: 2010-12-27 Impact factor: 11.639
Authors: Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2010-12
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
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
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
Authors: Michele C Gornick; Aaron M Scherer; Erica J Sutton; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole L Exe; Ming Li; Wendy R Uhlmann; Scott Y H Kim; J Scott Roberts; Raymond G De Vries Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Kerry A Ryan; Raymond G De Vries; Wendy R Uhlmann; J Scott Roberts; Michele C Gornick Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Mwenza Blell; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lorraine Cowley; Stephanie O M Dyke; Clara Gaff; Robert Green; Alison Hall; Amber L Johns; Bartha M Knoppers; Stephanie Mulrine; Christine Patch; Eva Winkler; Madeleine J Murtagh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jill O Robinson; Julia Wynn; Barbara Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara Bernhardt; Kyle B Brothers; Wendy K Chung; Kurt D Christensen; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; M Ragan Hart; Ida Griesemer; Donald L Patrick; Christine Rini; David Veenstra; Angel M Cronin; Stacy W Gray Journal: Genet Med Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Madeleine J Murtagh Journal: Per Med Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 2.512