Literature DB >> 34446835

Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications.

Ryan Pysar1,2, Courtney K Wallingford3, Jackie Boyle4, Scott B Campbell5, Lisa Eckstein6, Rebekah McWhirter7, Bronwyn Terrill8,9, Chris Jacobs10, Aideen M McInerney-Leo11.   

Abstract

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34446835      PMCID: PMC8633339          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-00951-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  38 in total

1.  A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings.

Authors:  Lisa Eckstein; Jeremy R Garrett; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 2.  Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Ekland Abdiwahab; Heather M Edwards; Min-Lin Fang; Andrew Jdayani; Erica S Breslau
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  DNA on loan: issues to consider when carrying out genetic research with aboriginal families and communities.

Authors:  Laura Arbour; Doris Cook
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2006

4.  "Still Rather Hazy at Present": Citizens' and Physicians' Views on Returning Results from Biobank Research Using Broad Consent.

Authors:  Gaia Barazzetti; Samuele Cavalli; Lazare Benaroyo; Alain Kaufmann
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-02-08

5.  The Global Landscape of Nursing and Genomics.

Authors:  Kathleen A Calzone; Maggie Kirk; Emma Tonkin; Laurie Badzek; Caroline Benjamin; Anna Middleton
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2018-04-02       Impact factor: 3.176

6.  Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing.

Authors:  Deanna Alexis Carere; Peter Kraft; Kimberly A Kaphingst; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Knowledge, attitudes, and values among physicians working with clinical genomics: a survey of medical oncologists.

Authors:  Peter Chow-White; Dung Ha; Janessa Laskin
Journal:  Hum Resour Health       Date:  2017-06-27

8.  Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants.

Authors:  Catherine Gliwa; Ilana R Yurkiewicz; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Sara Chandros Hull; Nathan Jones; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Queensland Consumers' Awareness and Understanding of Clinical Genetics Services.

Authors:  Courtney K Wallingford; Katrina Cutler; Satrio Nindyo Istiko; Lindsay F Fowles; Rachel Lamb; Jessica Bean; Louise Healy; Gary Hondow; Gregory Pratt; Miranda E Vidgen; Nicola Waddell; Erin Evans; David Bunker; Aideen M McInerney-Leo
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 4.599

10.  Sharing genomic data from clinical testing with researchers: public survey of expectations of clinical genomic data management in Queensland, Australia.

Authors:  Miranda E Vidgen; Sid Kaladharan; Eva Malacova; Cameron Hurst; Nicola Waddell
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 2.652

View more
  1 in total

1.  Genomics elucidates both common and rare disease aetiology.

Authors:  Alisdair McNeill
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 4.246

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.