Literature DB >> 33319384

A survey of aortic disease biorepository participants' preferences for return of research genetic results.

Jamie Love-Nichols1, Wendy R Uhlmann2,3,4, Patricia Arscott3, Cristen Willer2,3,5, Whitney Hornsby3, J Scott Roberts4,6.   

Abstract

There is ongoing debate on whether and what research genetic results to return to study participants. To date, no study in this area has focused on aortopathy populations despite known genes that are clinically actionable. Participants (n = 225, 79% male, mean age = 61 years) with an aortopathy were surveyed to assess preferences for receiving research genetic results. Participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want results for pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes with implications for family members (81%) or that would change medical management (76%). Similarly, participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want actionable secondary findings related to cancer (75%) or other cardiac diseases (70%). Significantly lower interest was observed for non-actionable findings-pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes that would not change medical management (51%) and variants of uncertain significance (38%) (p < .0001). Higher health and genomic literacy were positively associated with interest in actionable findings. Most participants (>63%) were accepting of any means of return; however, a substantial minority (18%-38%) deemed certain technological means unacceptable (e.g., patient portal). Over 90% of participants reported that a range of health professionals, including cardiovascular specialists, genetics specialists, and primary care providers, were acceptable to return results. Participants with aortopathies are highly interested in research genetic results perceived to be medically actionable for themselves or family members. Participants are accepting of a variety of means for returning results. Findings suggest that research participants should be asked what results are preferred at time of informed consent and that genetic counseling may clarify implications of results that are not personally medically actionable.
© 2020 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aortic disease; biobank; research genetic results; service delivery models; variants of uncertain significance

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33319384      PMCID: PMC8192438          DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1341

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.717


  41 in total

1.  Anticipate and communicate: Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues).

Authors:  Christine Weiner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Offering individual genetic research results: context matters.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 17.956

3.  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

4.  Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group.

Authors:  Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2010-12

5.  Clinical Validity of Genes for Heritable Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm and Dissection.

Authors:  Marjolijn Renard; Catherine Francis; Rajarshi Ghosh; Alan F Scott; P Dane Witmer; Lesley C Adès; Gregor U Andelfinger; Pauline Arnaud; Catherine Boileau; Bert L Callewaert; Dongchuan Guo; Nadine Hanna; Mark E Lindsay; Hiroko Morisaki; Takayuki Morisaki; Nicholas Pachter; Leema Robert; Lut Van Laer; Harry C Dietz; Bart L Loeys; Dianna M Milewicz; Julie De Backer
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2018-08-07       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings?

Authors:  Catherine Gliwa; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 11.229

7.  Preferences for Return of Genetic Results Among Participants in the Jackson Heart Study and Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  Steven Joffe; Deborah E Sellers; Lynette Ekunwe; Donna Antoine-Lavigne; Sarah McGraw; Daniel Levy; Greta Lee Splansky
Journal:  Circ Genom Precis Med       Date:  2019-11-22

8.  Characterizing Participants in the ClinSeq Genome Sequencing Cohort as Early Adopters of a New Health Technology.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Paul K J Han; Gillian W Hooker; William M P Klein; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research.

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

10.  Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study.

Authors:  David Kaufman; Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  3 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.  Exposure and risk factors for COVID-19 and the impact of staying home on Michigan residents.

Authors:  Kuan-Han H Wu; Whitney E Hornsby; Bethany Klunder; Amelia Krause; Anisa Driscoll; John Kulka; Ryan Bickett-Hickok; Austin Fellows; Sarah Graham; Erin O Kaleba; Salim S Hayek; Xu Shi; Nadia R Sutton; Nicholas Douville; Bhramar Mukherjee; Kenneth Jamerson; Chad M Brummett; Cristen J Willer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants.

Authors:  Adelyn Beil; Whitney Hornsby; Cristen Willer; J Scott Roberts; Wendy R Uhlmann; Rajani Aatre; Patricia Arscott; Brooke Wolford; Kim A Eagle; Bo Yang; Jennifer McNamara
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.063

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.