Maya Sabatello1, Yuan Zhang2, Ying Chen3, Paul S Appelbaum4. 1. Center for Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA, ms4075@columbia.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 3. Research Scientist and Biostatistician, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York, USA. 4. Center for Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Returning genetic results to research participants is gaining momentum in the USA. It is believed to be an important step in exploring the impact of efforts to translate findings from research to bedside and public health benefits. Some also hope that this practice will incentivize research participation, especially among people from historically marginalized communities who are commonly underrepresented in research. However, research participants' interest in receiving nongenomic medical and nonmedical results that may emerge from precision medicine research (PMR) is understudied and no study to date has explored the views of people with disabilities about return of genomic and nongenomic results from PMR. METHODS: In a national online survey of people with disabilities, participants were queried about their interest in receiving biological, environmental, and lifestyle results from PMR (n = 1,294). Analyses describe findings for all of the participants and comparisons for key demographic characteristics and disability subgroups. RESULTS: The participants expressed high interest in biological and health-related results and less interest in other findings. However, the interest among the study participants was lower than that found in comparable studies of the general population. Moreover, this interest varied significantly across gender, race/ethnicity, and disability subgroups. Possible reasons for these differences are discussed. CONCLUSION: Insofar as return of results from PMR may impact translational efforts, it is important to better understand the role of sociomedical marginalization in decisions about return of results from PMR and to develop strategies to address existing barriers.
PURPOSE: Returning genetic results to research participants is gaining momentum in the USA. It is believed to be an important step in exploring the impact of efforts to translate findings from research to bedside and public health benefits. Some also hope that this practice will incentivize research participation, especially among people from historically marginalized communities who are commonly underrepresented in research. However, research participants' interest in receiving nongenomic medical and nonmedical results that may emerge from precision medicine research (PMR) is understudied and no study to date has explored the views of people with disabilities about return of genomic and nongenomic results from PMR. METHODS: In a national online survey of people with disabilities, participants were queried about their interest in receiving biological, environmental, and lifestyle results from PMR (n = 1,294). Analyses describe findings for all of the participants and comparisons for key demographic characteristics and disability subgroups. RESULTS: The participants expressed high interest in biological and health-related results and less interest in other findings. However, the interest among the study participants was lower than that found in comparable studies of the general population. Moreover, this interest varied significantly across gender, race/ethnicity, and disability subgroups. Possible reasons for these differences are discussed. CONCLUSION: Insofar as return of results from PMR may impact translational efforts, it is important to better understand the role of sociomedical marginalization in decisions about return of results from PMR and to develop strategies to address existing barriers.
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Mildred K Cho; Katherine Gillespie; Meghan Halley; Nina Varsava; Kelly E Ormond; Harold S Luft; Benjamin S Wilfond; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee Journal: Am J Bioeth Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.229
Authors: Nicole L Allen; Elizabeth W Karlson; Susan Malspeis; Bing Lu; Christine E Seidman; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.616
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: Maya Sabatello; Ying Chen; Carmen Fiorella Herrera; Erika Brockhoff; Jehannine Austin; Paul S Appelbaum Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 2.000