Literature DB >> 29385584

Parental attitudes and expectations towards receiving genomic test results in healthy children.

Alanna Kulchak Rahm1, Lindsay Bailey1, Kara Fultz1,2, Audrey Fan1,3, Janet L Williams1, Adam Buchanan1, F Daniel Davis1, Michael F Murray1, Marc S Williams1.   

Abstract

Little evidence is available to guide returning genomic results in children without medical indication for sequencing. Professional guidelines for returning information on adult-onset conditions are conflicting. The goal of this study was to provide preliminary information on parental attitudes and expectations about returning medically actionable genomic results in children who have been sequenced as part of a population biobank.Four focus groups of parents with a child enrolled in a population biobank were conducted. A deliberative engagement format included education about professional guidelines and ethical issues around returning results to children. Parents were presented two scenarios where their healthy child has a pathogenic variant for: (a) a medically actionable childhood condition; (b) a hereditary cancer syndrome with no medical management until adulthood. Thematic analysis was conducted on verbatim transcripts. Regardless of the scenario, parents stated that the genomic information was important, was like other unexpected medical information, and disclosure should be tailored to the child's age and result. Parents wanted the results in their child's medical record. Reasons for learning adult-onset results in their healthy children included to prepare their child for necessary medical action in adulthood. Parents also provided suggestions for program design. This preliminary evidence suggests that parents desire genomic results and expect to use this information to protect their child's health. More empirical research on psychosocial adjustment to such information with continued engagement of parents and children is needed to further inform how to best support families in the communication and use of genomic information. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adult-onset conditions; Children; Genetic testing; Genomics; Parental Attitudes; Qualitative methods

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29385584      PMCID: PMC6257004          DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibx044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Behav Med        ISSN: 1613-9860            Impact factor:   3.046


  22 in total

1.  Disclosing Secondary Findings from Pediatric Sequencing to Families: Considering the "Benefit to Families".

Authors:  Benjamin S Wilfond; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 2.  American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Lynch Syndrome.

Authors:  Joel H Rubenstein; Robert Enns; Joel Heidelbaugh; Alan Barkun
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Predictive genetic testing in young people for adult-onset conditions: where is the empirical evidence?

Authors:  R E Duncan; M B Delatycki
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.438

4.  Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate.

Authors:  David M Secko; Nina Preto; Simon Niemeyer; Michael M Burgess
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Genetic testing of children for diseases that have onset in adulthood: the limits of family interests.

Authors:  George E Hardart; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Lay Attitudes Toward Trust, Uncertainty, and the Return of Pediatric Research Results in Biobanking.

Authors:  John Lynch; Janelle Hines; Sarah Theodore; Monica Mitchell
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2015-06-09

7.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors:  Sarah S Kalia; Kathy Adelman; Sherri J Bale; Wendy K Chung; Christine Eng; James P Evans; Gail E Herman; Sophia B Hufnagel; Teri E Klein; Bruce R Korf; Kent D McKelvey; Kelly E Ormond; C Sue Richards; Christopher N Vlangos; Michael Watson; Christa L Martin; David T Miller
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Returning incidental findings from genetic research to children: views of parents of children affected by rare diseases.

Authors:  Erika Kleiderman; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Conrad V Fernandez; Kym M Boycott; Gail Ouellette; Durhane Wong-Rieger; Shelin Adam; Julie Richer; Denise Avard
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Predictive genetic testing of minors: evidence and experience with families.

Authors:  Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  8 in total

1.  High Rates of Genetic Diagnosis in Psychiatric Patients with and without Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Toward Improved Genetic Diagnosis in Psychiatric Populations.

Authors:  Joyce So; Venuja Sriretnakumar; Jessica Suddaby; Brianna Barsanti-Innes; Hanna Faghfoury; Timothy Gofine
Journal:  Can J Psychiatry       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 4.356

2.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Clinical and Public Health Genomics: Opportunities for translational behavioral medicine research, practice, and policy.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Michael J Hall; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

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

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  Clinical utility of genomic sequencing: a measurement toolkit.

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; David Dimmock; David Bick; John W Belmont; Robert C Green; Brendan Lanpher; Vaidehi Jobanputra; Roberto Mendoza; Shashi Kulkarni; Megan E Grove; Stacie L Taylor; Euan Ashley
Journal:  NPJ Genom Med       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 8.617

6.  Family-level impact of genetic testing: integrating health economics and ethical, legal, and social implications.

Authors:  Hadley Stevens Smith; Amy L McGuire; Eve Wittenberg; Tara A Lavelle
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 2.512

7.  Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents.

Authors:  Juliann M Savatt; Jennifer K Wagner; Steven Joffe; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Marc S Williams; Angela R Bradbury; F Daniel Davis; Julie Hergenrather; Yirui Hu; Melissa A Kelly; H Lester Kirchner; Michelle N Meyer; Jessica Mozersky; Sean M O'Dell; Josie Pervola; Andrea Seeley; Amy C Sturm; Adam H Buchanan
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 2.125

Review 8.  Adolescent Assent and Reconsent for Biobanking: Recent Developments and Emerging Ethical Issues.

Authors:  T J Kasperbauer; Colin Halverson
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-07-09
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.