Background: There is a growing interest in creating large-scale repositories that store genetic, behavioral, and environmental data for future, unspecified uses. The All of Us Research Program is one example of such a repository. Its participants will get access to their personal data and the results of the studies that used them. However, little is known about what researchers should return to participants and how they should do it in a way that is valuable and meaningful to participants. Methods: To better understand the concept of "return of value" and the practice of returning valuable study information, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 44 stakeholders with diverse perspectives on this topic. All interviews have been transcribed and coded thematically to identify the most salient themes, to explore differences between returning different types of study results, and to describe differences and similarities in perspectives of different stakeholder groups. Results: We found that one size does not fit all when it comes to returning value to participants: the decisions about return of results are affected by participant preferences, researchers' concerns about feasibility, the types of data collected, their level of granularity, and available options for supporting result interpretation. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the key to operationalizing return of value and to identifying ways to return valuable information to study participants may be to find a point of equilibrium between criteria that may affect usefulness and feasibility. The point of equilibrium may vary by study, by participants' backgrounds and preferences, by their health literacy and access to regular healthcare, and by the resources available to professionals controlling the data. Future studies should explore the factors that determine the point of equilibrium between feasibility and usefulness.
Background: There is a growing interest in creating large-scale repositories that store genetic, behavioral, and environmental data for future, unspecified uses. The All of Us Research Program is one example of such a repository. Its participants will get access to their personal data and the results of the studies that used them. However, little is known about what researchers should return to participants and how they should do it in a way that is valuable and meaningful to participants. Methods: To better understand the concept of "return of value" and the practice of returning valuable study information, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 44 stakeholders with diverse perspectives on this topic. All interviews have been transcribed and coded thematically to identify the most salient themes, to explore differences between returning different types of study results, and to describe differences and similarities in perspectives of different stakeholder groups. Results: We found that one size does not fit all when it comes to returning value to participants: the decisions about return of results are affected by participant preferences, researchers' concerns about feasibility, the types of data collected, their level of granularity, and available options for supporting result interpretation. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the key to operationalizing return of value and to identifying ways to return valuable information to study participants may be to find a point of equilibrium between criteria that may affect usefulness and feasibility. The point of equilibrium may vary by study, by participants' backgrounds and preferences, by their health literacy and access to regular healthcare, and by the resources available to professionals controlling the data. Future studies should explore the factors that determine the point of equilibrium between feasibility and usefulness.
Entities:
Keywords:
All of us research program; data repository; research ethics; research participants; return of results; return of value
Authors: Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2010-12
Authors: Ashwin Belle; Raghuram Thiagarajan; S M Reza Soroushmehr; Fatemeh Navidi; Daniel A Beard; Kayvan Najarian Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.411
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: Casey Overby Taylor; Natalie Flaks Manov; Katherine D Crew; Chunhua Weng; John J Connolly; Christopher G Chute; Daniel E Ford; Harold Lehmann; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Pedro J Caraballo; Ingrid A Holm; Debra Mathews Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-05-11