Literature DB >> 30830824

Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why.

Consuelo H Wilkins1, Brandy M Mapes2, Rebecca N Jerome3, Victoria Villalta-Gil4, Jill M Pulley5, Paul A Harris6.   

Abstract

There is growing public demand that research participants receive all of their results, regardless of whether clinical action is indicated. Instead of the standard practice of returning only actionable results, we propose a reconceptualization called "return of value" to encompass the varied ways in which research participants value specific results and more general information they receive beyond actionable results. Our proposal is supported by a national survey of a diverse sample, which found that receiving research results would be valuable to most (78.5 percent) and would make them more likely to trust researchers (70.3 percent). Respondents highly valued results revealing genetic effects on medication response and predicting disease risk, as well as information about nearby clinical trials and updates on how their data were used. The information most valued varied by education, race/ethnicity, and age. Policies are needed to enable return of information in ways that recognize participants' differing informational needs and values.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30830824      PMCID: PMC6706772          DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  27 in total

Review 1.  Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Ma'n H Zawati; Karine Sénécal
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-08-10       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Mapping the Ethics of Translational Genomics: Situating Return of Results and Navigating the Research-Clinical Divide.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Wylie Burke; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Personal utility in genomic testing: is there such a thing?

Authors:  Eline M Bunnik; A Cecile J W Janssens; Maartje H N Schermer
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings.

Authors:  Lisa Eckstein; Jeremy R Garrett; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.718

6.  Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study.

Authors:  Juli Murphy Bollinger; Joan Scott; Rachel Dvoskin; David Kaufman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Community Engagement Studios: A Structured Approach to Obtaining Meaningful Input From Stakeholders to Inform Research.

Authors:  Yvonne A Joosten; Tiffany L Israel; Neely A Williams; Leslie R Boone; David G Schlundt; Charles P Mouton; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard; Consuelo H Wilkins
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 6.893

8.  Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research.

Authors:  Anna Middleton; Katherine I Morley; Eugene Bragin; Helen V Firth; Matthew E Hurles; Caroline F Wright; Michael Parker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Developing Pharmacogenomic Reports: Insights from Patients and Clinicians.

Authors:  Laney K Jones; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Michael R Gionfriddo; Janet L Williams; Audrey L Fan; Rebecca A Pulk; Eric A Wright; Marc S Williams
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 4.689

10.  A Tale of 2 Constituencies: Exploring Patient and Clinician Perspectives in the Age of Big Data.

Authors:  Crispin N Goytia; Isaac Kastenbaum; Donna Shelley; Carol R Horowitz; Rainu Kaushal
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  16 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.  Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results.

Authors:  Sarah Cook; Stephanie Mayers; Kathryn Goggins; David Schlundt; Kemberlee Bonnet; Neely Williams; Donald Alcendor; Shari Barkin
Journal:  J Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2019-10-04

3.  In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research.

Authors:  Maya Sabatello; Yuan Zhang; Ying Chen; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.000

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

5.  Design and implementation of a massive open online course on enhancing the recruitment of minorities in clinical trials - Faster Together.

Authors:  Sheila V Kusnoor; Victoria Villalta-Gil; Margo Michaels; Yvonne Joosten; Tiffany L Israel; Marcia I Epelbaum; Patricia Lee; Elizabeth T Frakes; Jennifer Cunningham-Erves; Stephanie A Mayers; Sarah C Stallings; Nunzia B Giuse; Paul A Harris; Consuelo H Wilkins
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  The double helix at school: Behavioral genetics, disability, and precision education.

Authors:  Maya Sabatello; Beverly J Insel; Thomas Corbeil; Bruce G Link; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 5.379

7.  User-focused data sharing agreements: a foundation for the genomic future.

Authors:  Carolyn Petersen
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2019-10-01

8.  The ideological divide in confidence in science and participation in medical research.

Authors:  Matthew Gabel; Jonathan Gooblar; Catherine M Roe; John C Morris
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Factors influencing precision medicine knowledge and attitudes.

Authors:  Rohini Chakravarthy; Sarah C Stallings; Michael Williams; Megan Hollister; Mario Davidson; Juan Canedo; Consuelo H Wilkins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.752

10.  Increased Risk of COVID-19 Among Users of Proton Pump Inhibitors.

Authors:  Christopher V Almario; William D Chey; Brennan M R Spiegel
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 12.045

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.