Marta Fadda1, Maddalena Fiordelli1,2, Rebecca Amati1, Ilaria Falvo1, Aliaa Ibnidris1, Samia Hurst3, Emiliano Albanese1. 1. Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland. 2. Institute of Communication and Health, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland. 3. Institute for Ethics, History and the Humanities, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore prospective participants' preferences regarding the return of their individual-specific results from a dementia prevalence study (a probabilistic diagnosis of dementia). METHODS/ DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study with 22 individuals aged 45 to 86 and resident in the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland). Participants had previously joined the validation phase of an epidemiological study into dementia and its impact. RESULTS: We found that individuals welcome the return of their individual-specific results, provided these meet a number of validity, clinical, and personal utility criteria. They justify researchers' duty to return study findings with the principles of beneficence (eg, providing information that can help participants' medical decision-making) and justice (eg, acknowledging participants' efforts to help research by sharing their personal information). Furthermore, individuals anticipate societal benefits of the return of individual specific study findings, including improved interpersonal relationships among individuals and decreased dementia-related stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that researchers should address the return of individual-specific study results early on during study design and involve prospective participants in identifying both the conditions under which results should be offered and the perceived individual and societal benefits returning can have.
OBJECTIVES: To explore prospective participants' preferences regarding the return of their individual-specific results from a dementia prevalence study (a probabilistic diagnosis of dementia). METHODS/ DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study with 22 individuals aged 45 to 86 and resident in the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland). Participants had previously joined the validation phase of an epidemiological study into dementia and its impact. RESULTS: We found that individuals welcome the return of their individual-specific results, provided these meet a number of validity, clinical, and personal utility criteria. They justify researchers' duty to return study findings with the principles of beneficence (eg, providing information that can help participants' medical decision-making) and justice (eg, acknowledging participants' efforts to help research by sharing their personal information). Furthermore, individuals anticipate societal benefits of the return of individual specific study findings, including improved interpersonal relationships among individuals and decreased dementia-related stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that researchers should address the return of individual-specific study results early on during study design and involve prospective participants in identifying both the conditions under which results should be offered and the perceived individual and societal benefits returning can have.
Authors: Dean A Regier; Stuart J Peacock; Reka Pataky; Kimberly van der Hoek; Gail P Jarvik; Jeffrey Hoch; David Veenstra Journal: CMAJ Date: 2015-03-09 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Adrian Thorogood; Anna Mäki-Petäjä-Leinonen; Henry Brodaty; Gratien Dalpé; Chris Gastmans; Serge Gauthier; Dianne Gove; Rosie Harding; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Martin Rossor; Martin Bobrow Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Anna Middleton; Katherine I Morley; Eugene Bragin; Helen V Firth; Matthew E Hurles; Caroline F Wright; Michael Parker Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Kara N Maxwell; Laura DiGiovanni; Jamie Brower; Dominique Fetzer; Jill Bennett Gaieski; Amanda Brandt; Danielle McKenna; Jessica Long; Jacquelyn Powers; Jill E Stopfer; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-04-16