Literature DB >> 25742675

The development of a preference-setting model for the return of individual genomic research results.

Phoebe L Bacon1, Erin D Harris2, Sonja I Ziniel3, Sarah K Savage4, Elissa R Weitzman3, Robert C Green5, Noelle L Huntington3, Ingrid A Holm6.   

Abstract

Understanding participants' preferences for the return of individual research results (IRR) in genomic research may allow for the implementation of more beneficial result disclosure methods. We tested four preference-setting models through cognitive interviews of parents to explore how parents conceptualize the process of setting preferences and which disease characteristics they believe to be most important when deciding what results to receive on their child. Severity and preventability of a condition were highly influential in decision making and certain groups of research results were anticipated by participants to have negative psychological effects. These findings informed the development of an educational tool and preference-setting model that can be scaled for use in the return of IRR from large biobank studies.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biobank; cognitive interviews; genomic research; individual research results; participant preferences; pediatrics; qualitative research; return of results

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25742675     DOI: 10.1177/1556264615572092

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  14 in total

1.  Returning Results: Let's Be Honest!

Authors:  Bernice S Elger; Eva De Clercq
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-02-24

2.  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

3.  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

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.  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

6.  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

7.  Adolescents' and Parents' Genomic Testing Decisions: Associations With Age, Race, and Sex.

Authors:  Melanie F Myers; Lisa J Martin; Cynthia A Prows
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 5.012

8.  Allocation of Resources to Communication of Research Result Summaries.

Authors:  Julie E Richards; Emmi Bane; Stephanie M Fullerton; Evette J Ludman; Gail Jarvik
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 9.  Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.

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

10.  Enhancing Autonomy in Biobank Decisions: Too Much of a Good Thing?

Authors:  Phoebe B Mitchell; Sonja I Ziniel; Sarah K Savage; Kurt D Christensen; Elissa R Weitzman; Robert C Green; Noelle L Huntington; Debra J Mathews; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.