Melanie F Myers1, Lisa J Martin2, Cynthia A Prows3. 1. Division of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. Electronic address: melanie.myers@cchmc.org. 2. Division of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 3. Division of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adolescents will increasingly be involved in decisions about the return of genomic results. We examined adolescents' and parents' decisions about learning actual genomic research results for the adolescent and whether choices were associated with participants' demographic factors. METHODS: Adolescents aged between 13 and 17 years and a parent (dyads) were recruited through flyers, social media, employee emails, and clinic visits at a pediatric hospital. Dyads used a decision tool to independently choose the categories of conditions they wanted to learn about the adolescent. They then came together to discuss their independent decisions and make final joint decisions. Conditions were categorized by preventability, treatability, adult-onset conditions, and carrier status. Participants could make granular choices by including or excluding conditions in each category. Categorical choices were collapsed into the "aggregate choice" to learn all or not all results. RESULTS: Study visits were completed by 163 dyads. Adolescents were less likely than their parents to independently choose to learn all results (64.4% vs. 76.1%; p = .0056). Parents were less likely to independently choose to learn all results for their daughters than their sons (odds ratio = .41, 95% confidence interval .18-.96; p = .032). Black adolescents were less likely to independently choose to learn all results than white adolescents (odds ratio = .22; 95% confidence interval .08-.55; p = .0015). After making joint decisions, 70.6% of dyads chose to learn all results. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents independently wanted to learn less genomic information than their parents. Although adolescents cannot legally make genomic testing decisions without parental permission, adolescents' should be engaged in decisions about the return of genomic results.
PURPOSE: Adolescents will increasingly be involved in decisions about the return of genomic results. We examined adolescents' and parents' decisions about learning actual genomic research results for the adolescent and whether choices were associated with participants' demographic factors. METHODS: Adolescents aged between 13 and 17 years and a parent (dyads) were recruited through flyers, social media, employee emails, and clinic visits at a pediatric hospital. Dyads used a decision tool to independently choose the categories of conditions they wanted to learn about the adolescent. They then came together to discuss their independent decisions and make final joint decisions. Conditions were categorized by preventability, treatability, adult-onset conditions, and carrier status. Participants could make granular choices by including or excluding conditions in each category. Categorical choices were collapsed into the "aggregate choice" to learn all or not all results. RESULTS: Study visits were completed by 163 dyads. Adolescents were less likely than their parents to independently choose to learn all results (64.4% vs. 76.1%; p = .0056). Parents were less likely to independently choose to learn all results for their daughters than their sons (odds ratio = .41, 95% confidence interval .18-.96; p = .032). Black adolescents were less likely to independently choose to learn all results than white adolescents (odds ratio = .22; 95% confidence interval .08-.55; p = .0015). After making joint decisions, 70.6% of dyads chose to learn all results. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents independently wanted to learn less genomic information than their parents. Although adolescents cannot legally make genomic testing decisions without parental permission, adolescents' should be engaged in decisions about the return of genomic results.
Authors: Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: George C Patton; Susan M Sawyer; John S Santelli; David A Ross; Rima Afifi; Nicholas B Allen; Monika Arora; Peter Azzopardi; Wendy Baldwin; Christopher Bonell; Ritsuko Kakuma; Elissa Kennedy; Jaqueline Mahon; Terry McGovern; Ali H Mokdad; Vikram Patel; Suzanne Petroni; Nicola Reavley; Kikelomo Taiwo; Jane Waldfogel; Dakshitha Wickremarathne; Carmen Barroso; Zulfiqar Bhutta; Adesegun O Fatusi; Amitabh Mattoo; Judith Diers; Jing Fang; Jane Ferguson; Frederick Ssewamala; Russell M Viner Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ingrid A Holm; Sarah K Savage; Robert C Green; Eric Juengst; Amy McGuire; Susan Kornetsky; Stephanie J Brewster; Steven Joffe; Patrick Taylor Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Wayne W Grody; Sarah S Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Christa L Martin; Amy L McGuire; Robert L Nussbaum; Julianne M O'Daniel; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Michael S Watson; Marc S Williams; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Erin D Harris; Sonja I Ziniel; Jonathan G Amatruda; Catherine M Clinton; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Noelle L Huntington; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Megan A Lewis; Alex Stine; Ryan S Paquin; Carol Mansfield; Dallas Wood; Christine Rini; Myra I Roche; Cynthia M Powell; Jonathan S Berg; Donald B Bailey Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Amy A Blumling; Kristin E Childers-Buschle; John A Lynch; Melanie F Myers; Michelle L McGowan Journal: Am J Bioeth Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 11.229
Authors: Christin Hoell; Julia Wynn; Luke V Rasmussen; Keith Marsolo; Sharon A Aufox; Wendy K Chung; John J Connolly; Robert R Freimuth; David Kochan; Hakon Hakonarson; Margaret Harr; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Philip E Lammers; Kathleen A Leppig; Nancy D Leslie; Melanie F Myers; Richard R Sharp; Maureen E Smith; Cynthia A Prows Journal: Genet Med Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Aarushi Gupta; Joseph A Cafazzo; Maarten J IJzerman; Joost F Swart; Sebastiaan Vastert; Nico M Wulffraat; Susanne Benseler; Deborah Marshall; Rae Yeung; Marinka Twilt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 5.428