Literature DB >> 27553645

Views of Cohort Study Participants about Returning Research Results in the Context of Precision Medicine.

Travis Hyams1, Deborah J Bowen, Celeste Condit, Jeremy Grossman, Megan Fitzmaurice, Deborah Goodman, Lari Wenzel, Karen L Edwards.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The practice of biorepository-based genetics research raises questions related to what ethical obligations researchers have to their participants. It is important to explore and include the thoughts of current biorepository participants as we move forward with this type of research.
METHODS: Thirty participants (17 cancer patients, 7 cancer-free controls, and 6 relatives) were drawn from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and participated in qualitative interviews lasting between 45 and 90 min. Topics explored in this study include which types of genetic test results participants of large biorepositories expect and would like to receive from research analyzing their samples, as well as thoughts on best practice for conducting this type of research.
RESULTS: Cancer cases, controls, and first-degree relatives have differing views on what results they would like to receive from biorepository-based research. Participants across all groups attempted to balance the costs and benefits of returning individual research results. DISCUSSION: In the wake of precision medicine, it is important to describe the range of ways participants in large biorepositories both think and talk about the utilization of their specimens for genetics research.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27553645      PMCID: PMC5053808          DOI: 10.1159/000448277

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  26 in total

1.  Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results.

Authors:  J O'Daniel; S B Haga
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Disclosing individual CDKN2A research results to melanoma survivors: interest, impact, and demands on researchers.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; David I Shalowitz; Jessica N Everett; Scott Y H Kim; Leon Raskin; Stephen B Gruber
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-02-09       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 3.  Biobanks and personalized medicine.

Authors:  J E Olson; S J Bielinski; E Ryu; E M Winkler; P Y Takahashi; J Pathak; J R Cerhan
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 4.  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

5.  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

Review 6.  Biobanking past, present and future: responsibilities and benefits.

Authors:  Yvonne G De Souza; John S Greenspan
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 4.177

7.  Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Joëlle Y Friedman; N Chantelle Hardy; Li Lin; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-09       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.  The beliefs, motivations, and expectations of parents who have enrolled their children in a genetic biorepository.

Authors:  Erin D Harris; Sonja I Ziniel; Jonathan G Amatruda; Catherine M Clinton; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Noelle L Huntington; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Participant use and communication of findings from exome sequencing: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Gillian W Hooker; Philip D Connors; Travis C Hyams; Martha F Wright; Samantha Caldwell; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  2 in total

1.  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 2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.