Literature DB >> 28932961

Enrolling Genomics Research Participants through a Clinical Setting: the Impact of Existing Clinical Relationships on Informed Consent and Expectations for Return of Research Results.

Courtney Berrios1, Cynthia A James2, Karen Raraigh1, Juli Bollinger3, Brittney Murray2, Crystal Tichnell2, Carolyn D Applegate1, Amanda L Bergner4.   

Abstract

Genetic counselors working in a clinical setting may find themselves recruiting, enrolling, and returning results for genomic research, and existing clinical relationships with study participants may impact these research interactions. We present a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of participants enrolled in a genome sequencing/exome sequencing (GS/ES) study at the same institution where they receive clinical care. Interviews were coded for motivations to participate and expectations of this research. The interviews revealed common motivations for participation, including altruism and hope for benefit for themselves, family members, and/or others with their condition. Additionally, themes emerged related to unintentional influence based on trust of the clinical provider that recruited them to the study. Participant trust in the enrolling provider at times appeared to extend to the study team to decide which research results to return and to do so in an appropriate format. Participants also based expectations for research results return on previous clinical genetic testing experiences, which may or may not be realistic depending on study design. It is imperative that genetic counselors enrolling patients into research studies be aware of the potential influence of their clinical relationship on potential subjects, be transparent about their role on the study team, and help set expectations about the study process, including results return.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Expectations; Genetic counseling; Genomics research; Influence of provider; Motivations; Return of results

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28932961     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0143-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  31 in total

1.  'Science is really needed--that's all I know': informed consent and the non-verbal practices of collecting blood for genetic research in northern Sweden.

Authors:  Klaus Hoeyer
Journal:  New Genet Soc       Date:  2003-12

2.  Lynch syndrome patients' views of and preferences for return of results following whole exome sequencing.

Authors:  Kelly Hitch; Galen Joseph; Jenna Guiltinan; Jessica Kianmahd; Janey Youngblom; Amie Blanco
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: a focus group study.

Authors:  Samantha A Streicher; Saskia C Sanderson; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Michael Diefenbach; Meg Smirnoff; Inga Peter; Carol R Horowitz; Barbara Brenner; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-06-07

4.  An investigation of patients' motivations for their participation in genetics-related research.

Authors:  N Hallowell; S Cooke; G Crawford; A Lucassen; M Parker; C Snowdon
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Why do they do it? A pilot study towards understanding participant motivation and experience in a large genetic epidemiological study of endometriosis.

Authors:  Susan A Treloar; Katherine I Morley; Sandra D Taylor; Wayne D Hall
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2007

6.  Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Barbara A Bernhardt; Myra I Roche; Denise L Perry; Sarah R Scollon; Ashley N Tomlinson; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 2.802

7.  A Clinical Service to Support the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings in Human Research.

Authors:  Andrew J Darnell; Howard Austin; David A Bluemke; Richard O Cannon; Kenneth Fischbeck; William Gahl; David Goldman; Christine Grady; Mark H Greene; Steven M Holland; Sara Chandros Hull; Forbes D Porter; David Resnik; Wendy S Rubinstein; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Parents' and children's attitudes toward the enrollment of minors in genetic susceptibility research: implications for informed consent.

Authors:  Barbara A Bernhardt; Ellen S Tambor; Gertrude Fraser; Lawrence S Wissow; Gail Geller
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 2.802

9.  Stakeholders' opinions on the implementation of pediatric whole exome sequencing: implications for informed consent.

Authors:  Brooke L Levenseller; Danielle J Soucier; Victoria A Miller; Diana Harris; Laura Conway; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-07-12       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  How do research participants perceive "uncertainty" in genome sequencing?

Authors:  Barbara B Biesecker; William Klein; Katie L Lewis; Tyler C Fisher; Martha Frances Wright; Leslie G Biesecker; Paul K Han
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  8 in total

1.  Using the diffusion of innovations model to guide participant engagement in the genomics era.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Flavia M Facio; Courtney D Berrios
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 3.  Genetic Counseling Considerations for Military Beneficiaries.

Authors:  Lydia D Hellwig; Alyson Krokosky; Ashlee Vargason; Clesson Turner
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2021-12-30       Impact factor: 1.437

4.  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

5.  Delivering genome sequencing in clinical practice: an interview study with healthcare professionals involved in the 100 000 Genomes Project.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Melissa Hill; Christine Patch; Beverly Searle; Celine Lewis; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-11-03       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Perspectives and ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results: a qualitative study of genomics researchers in Uganda.

Authors:  Joseph Ochieng; Betty Kwagala; John Barugahare; Erisa Mwaka; Deborah Ekusai-Sebatta; Joseph Ali; Nelson K Sewankambo
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  The culture of research communication in neonatal intensive care units: key stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Jennifer Degl; Ronald Ariagno; Judy Aschner; Sandra Beauman; Wakako Eklund; Elissa Faro; Hiroko Iwami; Yamile Jackson; Carole Kenner; Ivone Kim; Agnes Klein; Mary Short; Keira Sorrells; Mark A Turner; Robert Ward; Scott Winiecki; Christina Bucci-Rechtweg
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2021-10-18       Impact factor: 2.521

8.  Old Challenges or New Issues? Genetic Health Professionals' Experiences Obtaining Informed Consent in Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Pascal Borry; Julian Savulescu; Julian J Koplin
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2020-10-05
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.