The communication of secondary variants: Interviews with parents whose children have undergone array-CGH testing

Clinical Genetics

Volumn 86, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 207-216

  Christenhusz, G M ^a   Devriendt, K ^a   Peeters, H ^a   Van Esch, H ^a   Dierickx, K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Disclosure; Ethics; Genetics; Incidental findings; Patient preferences

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARRAY COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; ARTICLE; CHILD PARENT RELATION; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MOTIVATION; NORMAL HUMAN; PARENTAL ATTITUDE; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; CHILD; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETICS; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INTERVIEW; NETHERLANDS; PARENT; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; CHILD; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; DISCLOSURE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; NETHERLANDS; PARENTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84907598143     PISSN: 00099163     EISSN: 13990004     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cge.12354     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Miller D, Adam M, Aradhya S et al. Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 2010: 86: 749-764.
2. Mardis ER. Next-generation DNA sequencing methods. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2008: 9: 387-402.
3. Ali-Khan S, Daar A, Shuman C, Ray P, Scherer S. Whole genome scanning: resolving clinical diagnosis and management amidst complex data. Pediatr Res 2009: 66: 357-363.
4. Kaye J, Boddington P, de Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K. Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. Eur J Hum Genet 2010: 18: 398-403.
5. Kohane I, Masys D, Altman R. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 2006: 296: 212-215.
6. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. Disclosing incidental findings in genetics contexts: a review of the empirical ethical research. Eur J Med Genet 2013: 56: 529-540.
7. Bennette CS, Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM et al. Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value-development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genet Med 2013: 15: 873-881.
8. Driessnack M, Daack-Hirsch S, Downing N et al. The disclosure of incidental genomic findings: an "ethically important moment" in pediatric research and practice. J Community Genet 2013: 4: 435-444.
9. Sapp JC, Dong D, Stark C et al. Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children. Clin Genet 2013: 85: 120-126.
10. Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, Lohn Z, Rousseau F, Friedman JM. "I want to know what's in Pandora's box": comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2012: 158A: 2519-2525.
11. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. Secondary variants - in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate. Eur J Hum Genet 2013: 21: 1331-1334.
12. Arksey H. Collecting data through joint interviews. Social Research Update 1996: Winter.
13. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet 2013: 21: 248-255.
14. Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 2011: 13: 499-504.
15. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005: 15: 1277-1288.
16. Riessman CK. Narrative analysis. In: Narrative, memory and everyday life. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield, 2005: 1-7.
17. Smith CP. Content analysis and narrative analysis. In: Reis HT, Judd CM, eds. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000: 313-335.
18. Hens K, Nys H, Cassiman J, Dierickx K. The return of individual research findings in paediatric genetic research. J Med Ethics 2011: 37: 179-183.
19. Wolf S, Lawrenz F, Nelson C et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008: 36: 219-248.
20. Ropka ME, Wenzel J, Phillips EK, Siadaty M, Philbrick JT. Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006: 15: 840-855.
21. Creighton S, Almqvist EW, MacGregor D et al. Predictive, pre-natal and diagnostic genetic testing for Huntington's disease: the experience in Canada from 1987 to 2000. Clin Genet 2003: 63: 462-475.
22. Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010: 10.
23. Peters SA, Laham SM, Pachter N, Winship IM. The future in clinical genetics: affective forecasting biases in patient and clinician decision making. Clin Genet 2013: Epub ahead of print DOI: 10.1111/cge.12255.
24. Evans JP. Return of results to the families of children in genomic sequencing: tallying risks and benefits. Genet Med 2013: 15: 435-436.
25. May T, Zusevics KL, Strong KA. On the ethics of clinical whole genome sequencing of children. Pediatrics 2013: 132: 207-209.
26. Balfour-Lynn I, Madge S, Dinwiddie R. Testing carrier status in siblings of patients with cystic fibrosis. Arch Dis Child 1995: 72: 167-168.
27. Wilfond BS, Carpenter KJ. Incidental findings in pediatric research. J Law Med Ethics 2008: 36: 332-340.
28. Stankiewicz P, Beaudet AL. Use of array CGH in the evaluation of dysmorphology, malformations, developmental delay, and idiopathic mental retardation. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2007: 17: 182-192.
29. Fernandez C. Public expectations for return of results - time to stop being paternalistic? Am J Bioeth 2008: 8: 46-48.
30. Kaut KP. Counseling psychology in the era of genetic testing: considerations for practice, research, and training. Couns Psychol 2006: 34: 461-488.