J A Anderson1,2,3, M S Meyn4,5,6,7,8, C Shuman4,5,6,9, R Zlotnik Shaul1,3,8,10, L E Mantella11,12, M J Szego3,13,14,15, S Bowdin4,6,8, N Monfared4, R Z Hayeems4,10,16. 1. Department of Bioethics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. 2. Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 3. Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 4. The Centre for Genetic Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. 5. Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 6. Program in Genetics and Genomic Biology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. 7. Division of Clinical and Metabolic Genetics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. 8. Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 9. Genetic Counselling, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. 10. Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. 11. Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 12. Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 13. St. Joseph's Health Centre, Toronto, Canada. 14. The Centre for Applied Genomics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. 15. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 16. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the consequences of returning whole genome sequencing (WGS) results in paediatrics and facilitate its evidence-based clinical implementation, we studied parents' experiences with WGS and their preferences for the return of adult-onset secondary variants (SVs)-medically actionable genomic variants unrelated to their child's current medical condition that predict adult-onset disease. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with parents whose children were undergoing WGS as part of the SickKids Genome Clinic, a research project that studies the impact of clinical WGS on patients, families, and the healthcare system. Interviews probed parents' experience with and motivation for WGS as well as their preferences related to SVs. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Of 83 invited, 23 parents from 18 families participated. These parents supported WGS as a diagnostic test, perceiving clear intrinsic and instrumental value. However, many parents were ambivalent about receiving SVs, conveying a sense of self-imposed obligation to take on the 'weight' of knowing their child's SVs, however unpleasant. Some parents chose to learn about adult-onset SVs for their child but not for themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Despite general enthusiasm for WGS as a diagnostic test, many parents felt a duty to learn adult-onset SVs. Analogous to 'inflicted insight', we call this phenomenon 'inflicted ought'. Importantly, not all parents of children undergoing WGS view the best interests of their child in relational terms, thereby challenging an underlying justification for current ACMG guidelines for reporting incidental secondary findings from whole exome and WGS. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the consequences of returning whole genome sequencing (WGS) results in paediatrics and facilitate its evidence-based clinical implementation, we studied parents' experiences with WGS and their preferences for the return of adult-onset secondary variants (SVs)-medically actionable genomic variants unrelated to their child's current medical condition that predict adult-onset disease. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with parents whose children were undergoing WGS as part of the SickKids Genome Clinic, a research project that studies the impact of clinical WGS on patients, families, and the healthcare system. Interviews probed parents' experience with and motivation for WGS as well as their preferences related to SVs. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Of 83 invited, 23 parents from 18 families participated. These parents supported WGS as a diagnostic test, perceiving clear intrinsic and instrumental value. However, many parents were ambivalent about receiving SVs, conveying a sense of self-imposed obligation to take on the 'weight' of knowing their child's SVs, however unpleasant. Some parents chose to learn about adult-onset SVs for their child but not for themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Despite general enthusiasm for WGS as a diagnostic test, many parents felt a duty to learn adult-onset SVs. Analogous to 'inflicted insight', we call this phenomenon 'inflicted ought'. Importantly, not all parents of children undergoing WGS view the best interests of their child in relational terms, thereby challenging an underlying justification for current ACMG guidelines for reporting incidental secondary findings from whole exome and WGS. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
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: Sarah A Walser; Allison Werner-Lin; Rebecca Mueller; Victoria A Miller; Sawona Biswas; Barbara A Bernhardt Journal: Per Med Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: David T Miller; Kristy Lee; Adam S Gordon; Laura M Amendola; Kathy Adelman; Sherri J Bale; Wendy K Chung; Michael H Gollob; Steven M Harrison; Gail E Herman; Ray E Hershberger; Teri E Klein; Kent McKelvey; C Sue Richards; Christopher N Vlangos; Douglas R Stewart; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Janet Malek; Stacey Pereira; Jill O Robinson; Amanda M Gutierrez; Melody J Slashinski; D Williams Parsons; Sharon E Plon; Amy L McGuire Journal: Genet Med Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Lilian Downie; Jane L Halliday; Rachel A Burt; Sebastian Lunke; Elly Lynch; Melissa Martyn; Zeffie Poulakis; Clara Gaff; Valerie Sung; Melissa Wake; Matthew Hunter; Kerryn Saunders; Elizabeth Rose; Heidi L Rehm; David J Amor Journal: BMJ Paediatr Open Date: 2017-09-14
Authors: Anath C Lionel; Gregory Costain; Nasim Monfared; Susan Walker; Miriam S Reuter; S Mohsen Hosseini; Bhooma Thiruvahindrapuram; Daniele Merico; Rebekah Jobling; Thomas Nalpathamkalam; Giovanna Pellecchia; Wilson W L Sung; Zhuozhi Wang; Peter Bikangaga; Cyrus Boelman; Melissa T Carter; Dawn Cordeiro; Cheryl Cytrynbaum; Sharon D Dell; Priya Dhir; James J Dowling; Elise Heon; Stacy Hewson; Linda Hiraki; Michal Inbar-Feigenberg; Regan Klatt; Jonathan Kronick; Ronald M Laxer; Christoph Licht; Heather MacDonald; Saadet Mercimek-Andrews; Roberto Mendoza-Londono; Tino Piscione; Rayfel Schneider; Andreas Schulze; Earl Silverman; Komudi Siriwardena; O Carter Snead; Neal Sondheimer; Joanne Sutherland; Ajoy Vincent; Jonathan D Wasserman; Rosanna Weksberg; Cheryl Shuman; Chris Carew; Michael J Szego; Robin Z Hayeems; Raveen Basran; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; Peter N Ray; Sarah Bowdin; M Stephen Meyn; Ronald D Cohn; Stephen W Scherer; Christian R Marshall Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 8.822