Literature DB >> 29888485

How do consent forms for diagnostic high-throughput sequencing address unsolicited and secondary findings? A content analysis.

D F Vears1,2, E Niemiec3,4,5,6, H C Howard6, P Borry1,2.   

Abstract

Whole exome and whole genome sequencing are increasingly being offered to patients in the clinical setting. Yet, the question of whether, and to what extent, unsolicited findings (UF) and/or secondary findings (SF) should be returned to patients remains open and little is known about how diagnostic consent forms address this issue. We systematically identified consent forms for diagnostic genomic sequencing online and used inductive content analysis to determine if and how they discuss reporting of UF and SF, and whether patients are given options regarding the return of these results. Fifty-four forms representing 38 laboratories/clinics were analyzed. A quarter of the forms did not mention UF or SF. Forms used a variety of terms to discuss UF and SF, sometimes using these interchangeably or incorrectly. Reporting policies for UF varied: 5 forms stated that UF will not be returned, 15 indicated UF may be returned, and 28 did not specify their policy. One-third indicated their laboratory returns SF. Addressing inconsistent terminology and providing sufficient information about UF/SF in consent forms will increase patient understanding and help ensure adequate informed consent.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bioethics; genomics; incidental findings; inductive content analysis; informed consent

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29888485     DOI: 10.1111/cge.13391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  7 in total

1.  Consent for clinical genome sequencing: considerations from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Paul S Appelbaum; Kyle B Brothers; Steven Joffe; Tia L Kauffman; Barbara A Koenig; Anya Er Prince; Sarah Scollon; Susan M Wolf; Barbara A Bernhardt; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.512

2.  Should we respect parents' views about which results to return from genomic sequencing?

Authors:  D F Vears
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 4.132

3.  Criteria for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome sequencing - a focus group study on professional practices and perspectives in Belgian genetic centres.

Authors:  Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Tania Moerenhout; Elfride De Baere; Ignaas Devisch
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 3.063

4.  Clinical management, ethics and informed consent related to multi-gene panel-based high throughput sequencing testing for platelet disorders: Communication from the SSC of the ISTH.

Authors:  Kate Downes; Pascal Borry; Katrin Ericson; Keith Gomez; Andreas Greinacher; Michele Lambert; Eva Leinoe; Patrizia Noris; Chris Van Geet; Kathleen Freson
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 5.824

5.  Attitudes toward genomic tumor profiling tests in Japan: patients, family members, and the public.

Authors:  Akiko Nagai; Izen Ri; Kaori Muto
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 3.172

Review 6.  A framework for reporting secondary and incidental findings in prenatal sequencing: When and for whom?

Authors:  Danya Vears; David J Amor
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 3.242

7.  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
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.