OBJECTIVES: Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR). METHODS: Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208). RESULTS: The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed.
OBJECTIVES: Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR). METHODS: Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208). RESULTS: The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed.
Authors: Christian M Simon; Janet K Williams; Laura Shinkunas; Debra Brandt; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Tineke M Meulenkamp; Sjef K Gevers; Jasper A Bovenberg; Gerard H Koppelman; Astrid van Hylckama Vlieg; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Anne Townsend; Shelin Adam; Patricia H Birch; Zoe Lohn; Francois Rousseau; Jan M Friedman Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Lynn G Dressler; Sondra Smolek; Roselle Ponsaran; Janell M Markey; Helene Starks; Nancy Gerson; Susan Lewis; Nancy Press; Eric Juengst; Georgia L Wiesner Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Paul S Appelbaum; Abby Fyer; Robert L Klitzman; Josue Martinez; Erik Parens; Yuan Zhang; Wendy K Chung Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 8.822
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
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
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