Literature DB >> 26376753

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

Ingrid A Holm1, Brittany R Iles2, Sonja I Ziniel3, Phoebe L Bacon4, Sarah K Savage5, Kurt D Christensen6, Elissa R Weitzman3, Robert C Green7, Noelle L Huntington3.   

Abstract

The perceived benefit of return of individual research results (IRRs) in accordance to participants' preferences in genomic biobank research is unclear. We developed an online preference-setting tool for return of IRRs based on the preventability and severity of a condition, which included an opt-out option for IRRs for mental illness, developmental disorders, childhood-onset degenerative conditions, and adult-onset conditions. Parents of patients <18 years of age at Boston Children's Hospital were randomized to the hypothetical scenario that their child was enrolled in one of four biobanks with different policies for IRRs to receive (a) "None," (b) "All," (c) "Binary"--choice to receive all or none, and (d) "Granular"--use the preference-setting tool to choose categories of IRRs. Parents were given a hypothetical IRRs report for their child. The survey was sent to 11,391 parents and completed by 2,718. The Granular group was the most satisfied with the process, biobank, and hypothetical IRRs received. The None group was least satisfied and least likely to agree that the biobank was beneficial (p < .001). The response to the statement that the biobank was harmful was not different between groups. Our data suggest that the ability to designate preferences leads to greater satisfaction and may increase biobank participation.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biobank research; participant preferences; pediatrics; preference-setting tool; return of individual genomic research results

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26376753      PMCID: PMC6686662          DOI: 10.1177/1556264615599620

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


  29 in total

1.  Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants.

Authors:  Vardit Ravitsky; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

2.  Tiered disclosure options promote the autonomy and well-being of research subjects.

Authors:  Mark A Rothstein
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

3.  Medicine. Reestablishing the researcher-patient compact.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Kenneth D Mandl; Patrick L Taylor; Ingrid A Holm; Daniel J Nigrin; Louis M Kunkel
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  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

5.  Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study.

Authors:  David Kaufman; Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Personal utility and genomic information: look before you leap.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Colleen M McBride; James P Evans; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Amy L McGuire; Mildred Cho; Janet A Buchanan; Michael M Burgess; Ursula Danilczyk; Christina M Diaz; Kelly Fryer-Edwards; Shane K Green; Marc A Hodosh; Eric T Juengst; Jane Kaye; Laurence Kedes; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Trudo Lemmens; Eric M Meslin; Juli Murphy; Robert L Nussbaum; Margaret Otlowski; Daryl Pullman; Peter N Ray; Jeremy Sugarman; Michael Timmons
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  13 in total

1.  Beyond Consent: Building Trusting Relationships With Diverse Populations in Precision Medicine Research.

Authors:  Stephanie A Kraft; Mildred K Cho; Katherine Gillespie; Meghan Halley; Nina Varsava; Kelly E Ormond; Harold S Luft; Benjamin S Wilfond; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 11.229

2.  Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Pankaj B Agrawal; Donald B Bailey; Alan H Beggs; Steven E Brenner; Amy M Brower; Julie A Cakici; Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy; Kee Chan; Flavia Chen; Robert J Currier; Dmitry Dukhovny; Robert C Green; Julie Harris-Wai; Ingrid A Holm; Brenda Iglesias; Galen Joseph; Stephen F Kingsmore; Barbara A Koenig; Pui-Yan Kwok; John Lantos; Steven J Leeder; Megan A Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Laura V Milko; Sean D Mooney; Richard B Parad; Stacey Pereira; Joshua Petrikin; Bradford C Powell; Cynthia M Powell; Jennifer M Puck; Heidi L Rehm; Neil Risch; Myra Roche; Joseph T Shieh; Narayanan Veeraraghavan; Michael S Watson; Laurel Willig; Timothy W Yu; Tiina Urv; Anastasia L Wise
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  Returning Results: Let's Be Honest!

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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Biobank participant support of newborn screening for disorders with variable treatment and intervention options.

Authors:  Megan E Bunnell; Beth A Tarini; Michael Petros; Aaron J Goldenberg; Aishwarya Arjunan; Catherine Wicklund
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-09-01

7.  Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

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

Review 8.  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

9.  Family health history reporting is sensitive to small changes in wording.

Authors:  Liam S Conway-Pearson; Kurt D Christensen; Sarah K Savage; Noelle L Huntington; Elissa R Weitzman; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe Bacon; Cara N Cacioppo; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Assessing the Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Sequencing.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; Dmitry Dukhovny; Uwe Siebert; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2015-12-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.