Literature DB >> 34241790

Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants.

Ciara Staunton1,2, Maria Kösters1, Peter P Pramstaller1,3, Deborah Mascalzoni4,5.   

Abstract

Legal, financial and organizational challenges and the absence of coherent international guidelines and legal frameworks still discourage many genetic studies to share individual research results with their participants. Studies and institutions deciding to return genetic results will need to design their own study-specific return policy after due consideration of the ethical responsibilities. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, a healthy cohort study, did not foresee the return of individual genomic results during its baseline phase. However, as it was expected that the follow-up phase would generate an increasing amount of reliable genetic results, an update of the return of research results (RoRR) policy became necessary. To inform this revision, an empirical study using mixed methods was developed to investigate the views of CHRIS research participants (20), local general practitioners (3) and the local genetic counselling service (1). During the interviews, three different examples of potential genetic results with a very diverse potential impact on participants were presented: breast cancer, Parkinson disease and Huntington disease. The CHRIS participants also completed a short questionnaire, collecting personal information and asking for a self-evaluation of their knowledge about genetics. This study made it clear that research participants want to make autonomous decisions on the disclosure or non-disclosure of their results. While the motivations for participants' decisions were very diverse, we were able to identify several common criteria that had a strong influence on their choices. Providing information on these factors is crucial to enable participants to make truly informed decisions.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetic research; Healthy cohort study; Research policy; Return of genetic research results; Unsolicited findings

Year:  2021        PMID: 34241790     DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00536-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  38 in total

1.  Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility.

Authors:  Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 2.  To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Christenhusz; Koenraad Devriendt; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy.

Authors:  Annelien L Bredenoord; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Johannes J M Van Delden
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 4.878

4.  You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative.

Authors:  Misha Angrist
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  The right not to know: an autonomy based approach.

Authors:  R Andorno
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project.

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

Review 7.  Research ethics education for community-engaged research: a review and research agenda.

Authors:  Emily E Anderson; Stephanie Solomon; Elizabeth Heitman; James M DuBois; Celia B Fisher; Rhonda G Kost; Mary Ellen Lawless; Cornelia Ramsey; Bonnie Jones; Alice Ammerman; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.742

8.  Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study.

Authors:  Juli Murphy Bollinger; Joan Scott; Rachel Dvoskin; David Kaufman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?

Authors:  Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Deborah Mascalzoni; Sirpa Soini; Helena Machado; Jane Kaye; Heidi Beate Bentzen; Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag; Flavio D'Abramo; Michał Witt; Geneviève Schamps; Višnja Katić; Dusanca Krajnovic; Jennifer R Harris
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 10.  Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Laura M Amendola; Christine Eng; Eliezer Van Allen; Stacy W Gray; Nikhil Wagle; Heidi L Rehm; Elizabeth T DeChene; Matthew C Dulik; Fuki M Hisama; Wylie Burke; Nancy B Spinner; Levi Garraway; Robert C Green; Sharon Plon; James P Evans; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  1 in total

1.  Ten years of dynamic consent in the CHRIS study: informed consent as a dynamic process.

Authors:  Deborah Mascalzoni; Roberto Melotti; Cristian Pattaro; Peter Paul Pramstaller; Martin Gögele; Alessandro De Grandi; Roberta Biasiotto
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-09-05       Impact factor: 5.351

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.