Margaret Waltz1, Karen M Meagher2, Gail E Henderson1, Katrina Ab Goddard3, Kristin Muessig3, Jonathan S Berg4, Karen E Weck4,5, R Jean Cadigan1,6. 1. Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. 3. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR 97227, USA. 4. Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA. 5. Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA. 6. UNC Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA.
Abstract
Aim: Before population screening of 'healthy' individuals is widely adopted, it is important to consider the harms and benefits of receiving positive results and how harms and benefits may differ by age. Subjects & methods: Participants in a preventive genomic screening study were screened for 17 genes associated with 11 conditions. We interviewed 11 participants who received positive results. Results: Interviewees expressed little concern about their positive results in light of their older age, the risk condition for which they tested positive, or other pressing health concerns. Conclusion: Researchers and clinicians should recognize that returning positive results may not have the impact they presume given the diversity of the conditions screened and those who choose to undergo screening.
Aim: Before population screening of 'healthy' individuals is widely adopted, it is important to consider the harms and benefits of receiving positive results and how harms and benefits may differ by age. Subjects & methods: Participants in a preventive genomic screening study were screened for 17 genes associated with 11 conditions. We interviewed 11 participants who received positive results. Results: Interviewees expressed little concern about their positive results in light of their older age, the risk condition for which they tested positive, or other pressing health concerns. Conclusion: Researchers and clinicians should recognize that returning positive results may not have the impact they presume given the diversity of the conditions screened and those who choose to undergo screening.
Entities:
Keywords:
ELSI; age; ethics; genetic screening; harms and benefits; panel screening; population screening; qualitative interviews; return of results
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: Jessica L Bourdon; Amelia Dorsey; Maia Zalik; Amanda Pietka; Patricia Salyer; Michael J Bray; Laura J Bierut; Alex T Ramsey Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Amy A Lemke; Laura M Amendola; Jennifer Thompson; Henry M Dunnenberger; Kristine Kuchta; Chi Wang; Kristen Dilzell-Yu; Peter J Hulick Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2021-02