Literature DB >> 32669677

Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network.

Christin Hoell1, Julia Wynn2, Luke V Rasmussen1, Keith Marsolo3, Sharon A Aufox1, Wendy K Chung2, John J Connolly4, Robert R Freimuth5, David Kochan6, Hakon Hakonarson4,7, Margaret Harr4, Ingrid A Holm8,9, Iftikhar J Kullo6, Philip E Lammers10, Kathleen A Leppig11, Nancy D Leslie12, Melanie F Myers12, Richard R Sharp13, Maureen E Smith1, Cynthia A Prows14.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Secondary findings are typically offered in an all or none fashion when sequencing is used for clinical purposes. This study aims to describe the process of offering categorical and granular choices for results in a large research consortium.
METHODS: Within the third phase of the electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network, several sites implemented studies that allowed participants to choose the type of results they wanted to receive from a multigene sequencing panel. Sites were surveyed to capture the details of the implementation protocols and results of these choices.
RESULTS: Across the ten eMERGE sites, 4664 participants including adolescents and adults were offered some type of choice. Categories of choices offered and methods for selecting categories varied. Most participants (94.5%) chose to learn all genetic results, while 5.5% chose subsets of results. Several sites allowed participants to change their choices at various time points, and 0.5% of participants made changes.
CONCLUSION: Offering choices that include learning some results is important and should be a dynamic process to allow for changes in scientific knowledge, participant age group, and individual preference.

Entities:  

Keywords:  disclosure; genetic research results; genetic testing; preferences; secondary findings

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32669677      PMCID: PMC8477450          DOI: 10.1038/s41436-020-0905-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.864


  40 in total

1.  Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing and Interpretation for the eMERGE III Network.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  When bins blur: Patient perspectives on categories of results from clinical whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Leila Jamal; Jill O Robinson; Kurt D Christensen; Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Melody J Slashinski; Denise Lautenbach Perry; Jason L Vassy; Julia Wycliff; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2017-01-27

3.  The development of a preference-setting model for the return of individual genomic research results.

Authors:  Phoebe L Bacon; Erin D Harris; Sonja I Ziniel; Sarah K Savage; Elissa R Weitzman; Robert C Green; Noelle L Huntington; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 4.  Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin; John W Belmont; Jonathan S Berg; Benjamin E Berkman; Yvonne Bombard; Ingrid A Holm; Howard P Levy; Kelly E Ormond; Howard M Saal; Nancy B Spinner; Benjamin S Wilfond; Joseph D McInerney
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study.

Authors:  Flavia M Facio; Haley Eidem; Tyler Fisher; Stephanie Brooks; Amy Linn; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Adolescents' and Parents' Genomic Testing Decisions: Associations With Age, Race, and Sex.

Authors:  Melanie F Myers; Lisa J Martin; Cynthia A Prows
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 5.012

7.  Impact of Receiving Secondary Results from Genomic Research: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  Julia Wynn; Josue Martinez; Jessica Bulafka; Jimmy Duong; Yuan Zhang; Codruta Chiuzan; Jain Preti; Maria L Cremona; Vaidehi Jobanputra; Abby J Fyer; Robert L Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  A semiquantitative metric for evaluating clinical actionability of incidental or secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Julianne M O'Daniel; Jessica K Booker; Lacey Boshe; Timothy Carey; Kristy R Crooks; Brian C Jensen; Eric T Juengst; Kristy Lee; Daniel K Nelson; Bradford C Powell; Cynthia M Powell; Myra I Roche; Cecile Skrzynia; Natasha T Strande; Karen E Weck; Kirk C Wilhelmsen; James P Evans
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 9.  Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

Authors:  Michael P Mackley; Benjamin Fletcher; Michael Parker; Hugh Watkins; Elizabeth Ormondroyd
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Navigating the research-clinical interface in genomic medicine: analysis from the CSER Consortium.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Wendy K Chung; Ellen Wright Clayton; Robert C Green; Julie Harris-Wai; Gail E Henderson; Gail P Jarvik; Barbara A Koenig; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Amy L McGuire; Pearl O'Rourke; Carol Somkin; Benjamin S Wilfond; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  10 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.  A Framework for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Genetics and Genomics Research.

Authors:  Timothy R Rebbeck; John F P Bridges; Jennifer W Mack; Stacy W Gray; Jeffrey M Trent; Suzanne George; Norah L Crossnohere; Electra D Paskett; Corrie A Painter; Nikhil Wagle; Miria Kano; Patricia Nez Henderson; Jeffrey A Henderson; Shiraz I Mishra; Cheryl L Willman; Andrew L Sussman
Journal:  JAMA Health Forum       Date:  2022-04-15

3.  Adapting Clinical Systems to Enable Adolescents' Genomic Choices.

Authors:  Cynthia A Prows; Keith Marsolo; Melanie F Myers; Jeremy Nix; Eric S Hall
Journal:  ACI open       Date:  2020-07

4.  Returning individual genomic results to population-based cohort study participants with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants.

Authors:  Kinuko Ohneda; Yohei Hamanaka; Hiroshi Kawame; Nobuo Fuse; Fuji Nagami; Yoichi Suzuki; Yumi Yamaguchi-Kabata; Muneaki Shimada; Atsushi Masamune; Yoko Aoki; Takanori Ishida; Masayuki Yamamoto
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 3.307

5.  Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

Authors:  Julia Wynn; Hila Milo Rasouly; Tania Vasquez-Loarte; Akilan M Saami; Robyn Weiss; Sonja I Ziniel; Paul S Appelbaum; Ellen Wright Clayton; Kurt D Christensen; David Fasel; Robert C Green; Heather S Hain; Margaret Harr; Christin Hoell; Iftikhar J Kullo; Kathleen A Leppig; Melanie F Myers; Joel E Pacyna; Emma F Perez; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Gemme Campbell-Salome; Richard R Sharp; Maureen E Smith; Georgia L Wiesner; Janet L Williams; Carrie L Blout Zawatsky; Ali G Gharavi; Wendy K Chung; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 2.717

6.  Public interest in unexpected genomic findings: a survey study identifying aspects of sequencing attitudes that influence preferences.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Daryl Pullman; Charlene Simmonds; Proton Rahman
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-01-21

7.  Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization.

Authors:  Carrie L Blout Zawatsky; Nidhi Shah; Kalotina Machini; Emma Perez; Kurt D Christensen; Hana Zouk; Marcie Steeves; Christopher Koch; Melissa Uveges; Janelle Shea; Nina Gold; Joel Krier; Natalie Boutin; Lisa Mahanta; Heidi L Rehm; Scott T Weiss; Elizabeth W Karlson; Jordan W Smoller; Matthew S Lebo; Robert C Green
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Jemar R Bather; Brianne M Daly; Daniel Chavez-Yenter; Alexis Vega; Wendy K Kohlmann
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 4.772

9.  Preferences for Updates on General Research Results: A Survey of Participants in Genomic Research from Two Institutions.

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

10.  Exploring the motivations of research participants who chose not to learn medically actionable secondary genetic findings about themselves.

Authors:  Will Schupmann; Skye A Miner; Haley K Sullivan; Jamie R Glover; Janet E Hall; Shepherd H Schurman; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 8.822

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.