Literature DB >> 28421887

Preferences for the Return of Individual Results From Research on Pediatric Biobank Samples.

Kurt D Christensen1,2, Sarah K Savage3, Noelle L Huntington2,3, Elissa R Weitzman2,3, Sonja I Ziniel2,3, Phoebe L Bacon4, Cara N Cacioppo, Robert C Green2,5,6, Ingrid A Holm2,3.   

Abstract

Discussions about disclosing individual genetic research results include calls to consider participants' preferences. In this study, parents of Boston Children's Hospital patients set preferences for disclosure based on disease preventability and severity, and could exclude mental health, developmental, childhood degenerative, and adult-onset disorders. Participants reviewed hypothetical reports and reset preferences, if desired. Among 661 participants who initially wanted all results (64%), 1% reset preferences. Among 336 participants who initially excluded at least one category (36%), 38% reset preferences. Participants who reset preferences added 0.9 categories, on average; and their mean satisfaction on 0 to 10 scales increased from 4.7 to 7.2 ( p < .001). Only 2% reduced the number of categories they wanted disclosed. Findings demonstrate the benefits of providing examples of preference options and the tendency of participants to want results disclosed. Findings also suggest that preference-setting models that do not provide specific examples of results could underestimate participants' desires for information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biorepositories/biobanks; children and adolescent/pediatrics; genetic research; incidental findings/return of results; preferences

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28421887      PMCID: PMC5407299          DOI: 10.1177/1556264617697839

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


  40 in total

1.  Preferences Regarding Return of Genomic Results to Relatives of Research Participants, Including after Participant Death: Empirical Results from a Cancer Biobank.

Authors:  Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Gloria M Petersen; Susan M Wolf; Kari G Chaffee; Marguerite E Robinson; Deborah R Gordon; Noralane M Lindor; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  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

Review 3.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Children's competence for assent and consent: a review of empirical findings.

Authors:  Victoria A Miller; Dennis Drotar; Eric Kodish
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2004

Review 7.  Epidemiology and genetics of childhood cancer.

Authors:  Charles A Stiller
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2004-08-23       Impact factor: 9.867

8.  The Informed Cohort Oversight Board: From Values to Architecture.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm; Patrick L Taylor
Journal:  Minn J Law Sci Technol       Date:  2012

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.  Eliciting preferences on secondary findings: the Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; Kelly M East; Whitley V Kelley; M Frances Wright; Matthew J Westbrook; Carla A Rich; Kevin M Bowling; Edward J Lose; E Martina Bebin; Shirley Simmons; John A Myers; Greg Barsh; Richard M Myers; Greg M Cooper; Jill M Pulley; Mark A Rothstein; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  10 in total

1.  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

2.  A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing to Multigene Panel Testing in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients.

Authors:  Allison L Cirino; Neal K Lakdawala; Barbara McDonough; Lauren Conner; Dale Adler; Mark Weinfeld; Patrick O'Gara; Heidi L Rehm; Kalotina Machini; Matthew Lebo; Carrie Blout; Robert C Green; Calum A MacRae; Christine E Seidman; Carolyn Y Ho
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2017-10

3.  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

4.  Sharing and Safeguarding Pediatric Data.

Authors:  Dimitri Patrinos; Bartha Maria Knoppers; David P Laplante; Noriyeh Rahbari; Ashley Wazana
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  Factors Influencing Participation in Biospecimen Research among Parents of Youth with Mental Health Conditions.

Authors:  Ashli A Owen-Smith; Musu M Sesay; Frances L Lynch; Maria Massolo; Hilda Cerros; Lisa A Croen
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 6.  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

7.  Participants' Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana.

Authors:  Dimpho Ralefala; Mary Kasule; Olivia P Matshabane; Ambroise Wonkam; Mogomotsi Matshaba; Jantina de Vries
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 8.  Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape.

Authors:  Sara Casati; Bridget Ellul; Michaela Th Mayrhofer; Marialuisa Lavitrano; Elodie Caboux; Zisis Kozlakidis
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-09-27

9.  Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Kara N Maxwell; Laura DiGiovanni; Jamie Brower; Dominique Fetzer; Jill Bennett Gaieski; Amanda Brandt; Danielle McKenna; Jessica Long; Jacquelyn Powers; Jill E Stopfer; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2018-04-16

10.  Reflections on dynamic consent in biomedical research: the story so far.

Authors:  Harriet J A Teare; Megan Prictor; Jane Kaye
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-11-28       Impact factor: 4.246

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.