Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 133-138

  Downing, Nancy R ^a   Williams, Janet K ^a   Daack Hirsch, Sandra ^a   Driessnack, Martha ^a   Simon, Christian M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF NURSING   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical genetics; Disclosure; Genomics; Incidental findings

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL GENETICS; CONTENT ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LABORATORY PERSONNEL; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; NURSE; PATIENT COUNSELING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DISCLOSURE; FEMALE; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84870837938     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Biesecker L.G. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med 2012, 14:393-398.
2. ten Bosch J.R., Grody W.W. Keeping up with the next generation: massively parallel sequencing in clinical diagnostics. J Mol Diagn 2008, 10:484-492.
3. Fabsitz R., McGuire A., Sharp R., Puggal M., Beskow L., Biesecker L., et al. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circulation 2010, 3:574.
4. Bollinger J.M., Scott J., Dvoskin R., Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med 2012, 14:451-457.
5. Murphy J., Scott J., Kaufman D., Geller G., LeRoy L., Hudson K. Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am J Public Health 2009, 99:2128-2134.
6. Cho M.K. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:280-285.
7. Wolf S.M., Lawrenz F.P., Nelson C.A., Kahn J.P., Cho M.K., Clayton E.W., et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:219-248.
8. Bailey D.B., Skinner D., Davis A.M., Whitmarsh I., Powell C. Ethical, legal, and social concerns about expanded newborn screening: fragile X syndrome as a prototype for emerging issues. Pediatrics 2008, 121:e693-e704.
9. Bunnik E.M., Schermer M.H., Janssens A.C. Personal genome testing: test characteristics to clarify the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues. BMC Med Ethics 2011, 12:11.
10. Kohane I.S., Masys D.R., Altman R.B. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. J Amer Med Assoc 2006, 296:212-215.
11. Pyeritz R.E. The coming explosion in genetic testing - Is there a duty to recontact?. N Engl J Med 2011, 365:1367-1369.
12. Beaudet A.L. Ethical issues raised by common copy number variants and single nucleotide polymorphisms of certain and uncertain significance in general medical practice. Genome Med 2010, 2:42.
13. Grosse S.D., Rogowski W.H., Ross L.F., Cornel M.C., Dondorp W.J., Khoury M.J. Population screening for genetic disorders in the 21st century: evidence, economics, and ethics. Public Health Genomics 2010, 13:106-115.
14. Zwahlen M., Low N., Borisch B., Egger M., Kunzli N., Obrist R., et al. Population based screening - the difficulty of how to do more good than harm and how to achieve it. Swiss Med Wkly 2010, 140:w13061.
15. Berg J.S., Khoury M.J., Evans J.P. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 2011, 13:499-504.
16. Kohane I.S., Hsing M., Kong S.W. Taxonomizing, sizing, and overcoming the incidentalome. Genet Med 2012, 14:399-404.
17. Netzer C., Klein C., Kohlhase J., Kubisch C. New challenges for informed consent through whole genome array testing. J Med Genet 2009, 46:495-496.
18. Henrikson N.B., Burke W., Veenstra D.L. Ancillary risk information and pharmacogenetic tests: social and policy implications. Pharmacogenomics J 2008, 8:85-89.
19. Patton M.Q. Qualitative research and evaluation methods 2002, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
20. Illes J., Kirschen M.P., Edwards E., Bandettini P., Cho M.K., Ford P.J., et al. Practical approaches to incidental findings in brain imaging research. Neurology 2008, 70:384-390.
21. Shalowitz D.I., Miller F.G. Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. J Amer Med Assoc 2005, 294:737-740.
22. Wolf S.M. Introduction: the challenge of incidental findings. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:216-218.
23. QSR International. NVivo8; 2007:8. NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 10, 2012.
24. Graneheim U.H., Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004, 24:105-112.
25. Evans J.P., Burke W. Genetic exceptionalism. Too much of a good thing?. Genet Med 2008, 10:500-501.
26. Foster M.W., Royal C.D., Sharp R.R. The routinisation of genomics and genetics: implications for ethical practices. J Med Ethics 2006, 32:635-638.
27. Kakuk P. Gene concepts and genethics: beyond exceptionalism. Sci Eng Ethics 2008, 14:357-375.
28. Hastings R., de Wert G., Fowler B., Krawczak M., Vermeulen E., Bakker E., et al. The changing landscape of genetic testing and its impact on clinical and laboratory services and research in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet 2012, 20:911-916.
29. Kohane I.S., Taylor P.L. Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: getting it right. Sci Transl Med 2010, 2:37cm19.
30. Bellis M.A., Hughes K., Hughes S., Ashton J.R. Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005, 59:749-754.
31. Turney L. The incidental discovery of nonpaternity through genetic carrier screening: an exploration of lay attitudes. Qual Health Res 2005, 15:620-634.
32. Schleiter K.E. A physician's duty to warn third parties of hereditary risk. Virtual Mentor 2009, 11:697-700.
33. Mailman M.D., Feolo M., Jin Y., Kimuram M., Tryka K., Bagoutdinov R., et al. The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nat Genet 2007, 39:1181-1186.
34. Affleck P. Is it ethical to deny genetic research participants individualised results?. J Med Ethics 2009, 35:209-213.
35. Beskow L.M., Burke W. Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci Transl Med 2010, 2:38cm20.
36. Bredenoord A.L., Kroes H.Y., Cuppen E., Parker M., van Delden J.J. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet 2011, 27:41-47.
37. Bredenoord A.L., Onland-Moret N.C., Van Delden J.J. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum Mutat 2011, 32:861-867.
38. Edwards K.L., Lemke A.A., Trinidad S.B., Lewis S.M., Starks H., Quinn Griffin M.T., et al. Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers. Public Health Genomics 2011, 1-9.
39. Knoppers B.M., Dam A. Return of results: towards a Lexicon?. J Law Med Ethics 2011, 39:577-582.
40. Kollek R., Petersen I. Disclosure of individual research results in clinico-genomic trials: challenges, classification and criteria for decision-making. J Med Ethics 2011, 37:271-275.
41. Miller F.A., Hayeems R.Z., Li L., Bytautas J.P. What does 'respect for persons' require? Attitudes and reported practices of genetics researchers in informing research participants about research. J Med Ethics 2011, 38:48-52.
42. Murphy J., Scott J., Kaufman D., Geller G., LeRoy L., Hudson K. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008, 8:36-43.
43. Roth J.A., Garrison L.P., Burke W., Ramsey S.D., Carlson R., Veenstra D.L. Stakeholder perspectives on a risk-benefit framework for genetic testing. Public Health Genomics 2010, 14:59-67.
44. Ashida S., Koehly L.M., Roberts J.S., Chen C.A., Hiraki S., Green R.C. The role of disease perceptions and results sharing in psychological adaptation after genetic susceptibility testing: the REVEAL Study. Eur J Hum Genet 2010, 18:1296-1301.
45. Veenstra D.L., Roth J.A., Garrison L.P., Ramsey S.D., Burke W. A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice. Genet Med 2010, 12:686-693.