Literature DB >> 34229325

Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants.

Megan B Raymond1,2, Kayla E Cooper1, Lisa S Parker3, Vence L Bonham1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Many research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants' (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP.
METHODS: A semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants.
RESULTS: Three content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance.
CONCLUSION: Support to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.
© 2021 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genomics; Health equity; Research ethics; Return of results; Underserved communities

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34229325      PMCID: PMC8592386          DOI: 10.1159/000516782

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.132


  38 in total

1.  The ancillary-care responsibilities of medical researchers. An ethical framework for thinking about the clinical care that researchers owe their subjects.

Authors:  Henry S Richardson; Leah Belsky
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.683

2.  Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Authors:  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh; Sarah E Shannon
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2005-11

3.  Incidental Findings in Low-Resource Settings.

Authors:  Haley K Sullivan; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.683

4.  The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations.

Authors:  Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Carol R Horowitz; Frank Angelo; Jeannette T Bensen; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; Kelly Filipski; Stephanie M Fullerton; Bruce D Gelb; Katrina A B Goddard; Benyam Hailu; Ragan Hart; Kristen Hassmiller-Lich; Galen Joseph; Eimear E Kenny; Barbara A Koenig; Sara Knight; Pui-Yan Kwok; Katie L Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Mary E Norton; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Bradford C Powell; Neil Risch; Mimsie Robinson; Christine Rini; Sarah Scollon; Anne M Slavotinek; David L Veenstra; Melissa P Wasserstein; Benjamin S Wilfond; Lucia A Hindorff; Sharon E Plon; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Researcher perspectives on disclosure of incidental findings in genetic research.

Authors:  Meredith C Meacham; Helene Starks; Wylie Burke; Kelly Edwards
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  The role of disease perceptions and results sharing in psychological adaptation after genetic susceptibility testing: the REVEAL Study.

Authors:  Sato Ashida; Laura M Koehly; J Scott Roberts; Clara A Chen; Susan Hiraki; Robert C Green
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-07-28       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findings.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Steven Joffe; Barbara A Koenig; Barbara B Biesecker; Laurence B McCullough; Jennifer S Blumenthal-Barby; Timothy Caulfield; Sharon F Terry; Robert C Green
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  A Clinical Service to Support the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings in Human Research.

Authors:  Andrew J Darnell; Howard Austin; David A Bluemke; Richard O Cannon; Kenneth Fischbeck; William Gahl; David Goldman; Christine Grady; Mark H Greene; Steven M Holland; Sara Chandros Hull; Forbes D Porter; David Resnik; Wendy S Rubinstein; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm; Sarah K Savage; Robert C Green; Eric Juengst; Amy McGuire; Susan Kornetsky; Stephanie J Brewster; Steven Joffe; Patrick Taylor
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Racial Disparities in Incidence and Outcomes Among Patients With COVID-19.

Authors:  L Silvia Muñoz-Price; Ann B Nattinger; Frida Rivera; Ryan Hanson; Cameron G Gmehlin; Adriana Perez; Siddhartha Singh; Blake W Buchan; Nathan A Ledeboer; Liliana E Pezzin
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-09-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.