Literature DB >> 29701109

Attitudes Toward Return of Genetic Research Results to Relatives, Including After Death: Comparison of Cancer Probands, Blood Relatives, and Spouse/Partners.

Carmen Radecki Breitkopf1, Susan M Wolf2, Kari G Chaffee1, Marguerite E Robinson1, Noralane M Lindor3, Deborah R Gordon4, Barbara A Koenig4, Gloria M Petersen1.   

Abstract

Genetic research generates results with implications for relatives. Recommendations addressing relatives' access to a participant's genetic research findings include eliciting participant preferences about access and choosing a representative to make decisions about access upon participant incapacity/death. Representatives are likely to be blood relatives or spouse/partners (who may share genetically related children). This raises the question of whether relatives hold similar attitudes about access or divergent attitudes that may yield conflict. We surveyed pancreatic cancer biobank participants (probands) and relatives in a family registry (blood relatives and spouse/partners of probands); 1,903 (>55%) surveys were returned. Results revealed few attitudinal differences between the groups. A slightly higher proportion of blood relatives agreed with statements reflecting proband privacy. In conclusion, probands' decisions on access are likely to be accepted by relatives; in choosing a representative, probands may not face major differences in attitudes about privacy/sharing between a blood relative and a spouse/partner.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attitudes; biological family; cancer biobank; genetic research; pancreatic cancer; return of results

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29701109      PMCID: PMC5993615          DOI: 10.1177/1556264618769165

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


  21 in total

1.  Racial and ethnic variations in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing.

Authors:  Eleanor Singer; Toni Antonucci; John Van Hoewyk
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2004

Review 2.  Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered.

Authors:  Annelien L Bredenoord; Hester Y Kroes; Edwin Cuppen; Michael Parker; Johannes J M van Delden
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2010-12-27       Impact factor: 11.639

3.  Next generation disparities in human genomics: concerns and remedies.

Authors:  Anna C Need; David B Goldstein
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 11.639

Review 4.  Disclosure of genetic information obtained through research.

Authors:  Kimberly A Quaid; Nenette M Jessup; Eric M Meslin
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2004

Review 5.  Familial pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Gloria M Petersen
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 4.929

Review 6.  The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; David Wendler
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-03-13

7.  Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Brittney N Crock; Brian Van Ness; Frances Lawrenz; Jeffrey P Kahn; Laura M Beskow; Mildred K Cho; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Ralph Hall; Judy Illes; Moira Keane; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Isaac S Kohane; Bonnie Leroy; Karen J Maschke; William McGeveran; Pilar Ossorio; Lisa S Parker; Gloria M Petersen; Henry S Richardson; Joan A Scott; Sharon F Terry; Benjamin S Wilfond; Wendy A Wolf
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  The responses of research participants and their next of kin to receiving feedback of genetic test results following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study.

Authors:  Nina Hallowell; Kathryn Alsop; Margaret Gleeson; Ashley Crook; Loren Plunkett; David Bowtell; Gillian Mitchell; Mary-Anne Young
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings Policy Statement.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Mylène Deschênes; Ma'n H Zawati; Anne Marie Tassé
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 10.  The Role of BRCA2 Mutation Status as Diagnostic, Predictive, and Prognosis Biomarker for Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Javier Martinez-Useros; Jesus Garcia-Foncillas
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 3.411

View more
  5 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

2.  "If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens.

Authors:  Deborah R Gordon; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  New Genet Soc       Date:  2021-12-13

3.  Pragmatic Tools for Sharing Genomic Research Results with the Relatives of Living and Deceased Research Participants.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Emily Scholtes; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen; Susan A Berry; Laura M Beskow; Mary B Daly; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green; Bonnie S LeRoy; Noralane M Lindor; P Pearl O'Rourke; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mark A Rothstein; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences.

Authors:  Deborah R Gordon; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Marguerite Robinson; Wesley O Petersen; Jason S Egginton; Kari G Chaffee; Gloria M Petersen; Susan M Wolf; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2018-12-31

5.  Comparison of factors influencing the willingness to donate biospecimens among guardians of children with cancer and adult cancer patients.

Authors:  Hongxiang Gao; Baige Cao; Nan Dang; Song Gu; Min Xu; Bin Ji; Yiqi Shi; Shijian Liu; Congrong Wang
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 4.452

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.