Literature DB >> 27329739

Return of individual genomic research results: what do consent forms tell participants?

Stacey Pereira1, Jill Oliver Robinson1, Amy L McGuire1.   

Abstract

Advances in genomic technology make possible the large-scale collection of genomic data for research purposes. Many international initiatives seek to collect genomic data on large populations, often relying on existing collections to populate their databases. As these efforts progress, the debate over whether or not to return individual genetic research results to study participants remains an area of much contention. Some recommend returning results to participants only if the issue was addressed in the original study consent form. Much of the data being used in current studies, however, may have been derived from biospecimens collected years ago with consent documents that did not anticipate the possibility of returning individual level genomic results. We conducted an analysis of informed consent documents from published genome-wide association studies (GWAS) (n=40) to explore whether future research use of biospecimens or data is anticipated, and if return of results is addressed and how it is described to better understand participants' expectations for future disclosure. The majority (70%) of the GWAS consent documents we analyzed either stated explicitly that individual genomic results would not be returned or were silent on the issue. This has implications for how researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees manage the return of results from sequencing studies using legacy samples and data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27329739      PMCID: PMC5110071          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.76

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  28 in total

1.  The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think?

Authors:  Dave Wendler; Ezekiel Emanuel
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-08

2.  Public expectations for return of results--time to stop being paternalistic?

Authors:  Conrad Fernandez
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 11.229

3.  The search for clarity in communicating research results to study participants.

Authors:  D I Shalowitz; F G Miller
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group.

Authors:  Ebony B Bookman; Aleisha A Langehorne; John H Eckfeldt; Kathleen C Glass; Gail P Jarvik; Michael Klag; Greg Koski; Arno Motulsky; Benjamin Wilfond; Teri A Manolio; Richard R Fabsitz; Russell V Luepker
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  Returning genetic research results: study type matters.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Jill Oliver Robinson; Rachel B Ramoni; Debra S Morley; Steven Jofe; Sharon E Plon
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 2.512

6.  The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Yann Joly; Jacques Simard; Francine Durocher
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants.

Authors:  F A Miller; R Christensen; M Giacomini; J S Robert
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  The legal risks of returning results of genomics research.

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research.

Authors:  Anna Middleton; Katherine I Morley; Eugene Bragin; Helen V Firth; Matthew E Hurles; Caroline F Wright; Michael Parker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  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

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Towards precision nephrology: the opportunities and challenges of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Jordan G Nestor; Emily E Groopman; Ali G Gharavi
Journal:  J Nephrol       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.902

2.  Trust and Expectations of Researchers and Public Health Departments for the Use of HIV Molecular Epidemiology.

Authors:  Cynthia E Schairer; Sanjay R Mehta; Staal A Vinterbo; Martin Hoenigl; Michael Kalichman; Susan J Little
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2019-05-03

3.  How do clinical genetics consent forms address the familial approach to confidentiality and incidental findings? A mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Sandi Dheensa; Gillian Crawford; Claire Salter; Michael Parker; Angela Fenwick; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 4.  Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Related to the Inclusion of Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities in Electronic Health Record Research: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Melissa Raspa; Rebecca Moultrie; Laura Wagner; Anne Edwards; Sara Andrews; Mary Katherine Frisch; Lauren Turner-Brown; Anne Wheeler
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Willingness to Participate in a National Precision Medicine Cohort: Attitudes of Chronic Kidney Disease Patients at a Cleveland Public Hospital.

Authors:  Jessica N Cooke Bailey; Dana C Crawford; Aaron Goldenberg; Anne Slaven; Julie Pencak; Marleen Schachere; William S Bush; John R Sedor; John F O'Toole
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2018-06-26

6.  Considerations of Autonomy in Guiding Decisions around the Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results from Genomics Research: Expectations of and Preferences from Researchers in Botswana.

Authors:  Mary Kasule; Mogomotsi Matshaba; Erisa Mwaka; Ambroise Wonkam; Jantina de Vries
Journal:  Glob Health Epidemiol Genom       Date:  2022-03-31

7.  Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers.

Authors:  Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; Laura Torgerson; Hadley Stevens Smith; Stacey Pereira
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-10-03       Impact factor: 4.246

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.