Family decision maker perspectives on the return of genetic results in biobanking research

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 82-88

  Siminoff, Laura A ^a   Traino, Heather M ^a   Mosavel, Maghboeba ^b   Barker, Laura ^b   Gudger, Glencora ^b   Undale, Anita ^c  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c FREDERICK NATIONAL LABORATORY FOR CANCER RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

biobanking; bioethical issues; genetic research; incidental findings; return of results

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOBANKING; CHILD; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; FAMILY DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC PROCEDURES; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOTYPE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KNOWLEDGE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGAN PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATION; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; TELEPHONE INTERVIEW; TISSUE SECTION; ATTITUDE; BIOBANK; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; DONOR; ETHICS; FAMILY; INTERVIEW; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; FAMILY; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 84954348740     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.38     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Parens E, Appelbaum P, Chung W. Incidental findings in the era of whole genome sequencing? Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: 16-19
2. Zawati MH, Knoppers BM. International normative perspectives on the return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med 2012; 14: 484-489
3. Wolf SM. Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2013; 14: 557-577
4. Knoppers BM, Deschênes M, Zawati MH, Tassé AM. Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings Policy Statement. Eur J Hum Genet 2013; 21: 245-247
5. Beskow LM, Burke W. Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci Transl Med 2010; 2: 38cm20
6. Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E, Parker M, van Delden JJ. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet 2011; 27: 41-47
7. Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR, 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: Cardiovascular Genet 2010; 3: 574-580
8. NCI OoBaBR. NCI Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources, 2011. National Cancer Institute Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research. NCI Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources. http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/bestpractices/2011-NCIbestpractices.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2015. Accessed 11 March 2014
9. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al.; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013; 15: 565-574
10. Johnson G, Lawrenz F, Thao M. An empirical examination of the management of return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med 2012; 14: 444-450
11. Bledsoe MJ, Grizzle WE, Clark BJ, Zeps N. Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results. Genet Med 2012; 14: 478-483
12. McGuire AL, Robinson JO, Ramoni RB, Morley DS, Jofe S, Plon SE. Returning genetic research results: study type matters. Per Med 2013; 10: 27-34
13. Cassa CA, Savage SK, Taylor PL, Green RC, McGuire AL, Mandl KD. Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility. Genome Res 2012; 22: 421-428
14. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B, et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med 2012; 14: 361-384
15. Lonsdale J, Thomas J, Salvatore M, et al. The genotype-tissue expression (GTEx) project. Nature Genet 2013; 45: 580-585
16. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med 2008 ; 10: 831-839
17. Bollinger JM, 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
18. 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
19. Wendler D, Emanuel E. The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1457-1462
20. Haga SB, O?Daniel JM, Tindall GM, Lipkus IR, Agans R. Public attitudes toward ancillary information revealed by pharmacogenetic testing under limited information conditions. Genet Med 2011; 13: 723-728
21. Beskow LM, Dean E. Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants? understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 1440-1451
22. Facio FM, Eidem H, Fisher T, et al. Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study. Eur J Hum Genet 2013; 21: 261-265
23. Facio FM, Brooks S, Loewenstein J, Green S, Biesecker LG, Biesecker BB. Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. Eur J Hum Genet 2011; 19: 1213-1217
24. Arar N, Seo J, Lee S, et al. Preferences regarding genetic research results: comparing veterans and nonveterans responses. Public Health Genomics 2010; 13: 431-439
25. Chan B, Facio FM, Eidem H, Hull SC, Biesecker LG, Berkman BE. Genomic inheritances: disclosing individual research results from wholeexome sequencing to deceased participants? relatives. Am J Bioeth 2012; 12: 1-8
26. Bombard Y, Offit K, Robson ME. Risks to relatives in genomic research: a duty to warn? Am J Bioeth 2012; 12: 12-14
27. Fullerton SM, Trinidad SB, Jarvik GP, Burke W. Beneficence, clinical urgency, and the return of individual research results to relatives. Am J Bioeth 2012; 12: 9-10
28. Ormondroyd E, Moynihan C, Watson M, et al. Disclosure of genetics research results after the death of the patient participant: a qualitative study of the impact on relatives. J Genet Couns 2007; 16: 527-538
29. Iverson E, Celious A, Kennedy CR, et al. Perspectives of surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients regarding gene variation research. Genet Med 2013; 15: 368-373
30. Siminoff LA, Gordon N, Hewlett J, Arnold RM. Factors influencing families? consent for donation of solid organs for transplantation. JAMA 2001; 286: 71-77
31. Siminoff LA, Traino HM, Gordon N. Determinants of family consent to tissue donation. J Trauma 2010; 69: 956-963
32. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows [computer program]. Version 21.0. IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, 2012
33. SAS System for Windows [computer program]. Version 9.3. SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, 2011
34. Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, Chisholm RL, Wolf WA. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am J Med Genet A 2009; 149A: 188-198
35. Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, et al. Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol 2008; 6: e73
36. Halverson CM, Ross LF. Engaging African-Americans about biobanks and the return of research results. J Community Genet 2012; 3: 275-283
37. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 1987; 17: 20-24
38. Rodrigue JR, Scott MP, Oppenheim AR. The tissue donation experience: a comparison of donor and nondonor families. Prog Transplant 2003; 13: 258-264
39. Siminoff LA, Traino HM. Consenting to donation: an examination of current practices in informed consent for tissue donation in the US. Cell Tissue Bank 2013; 14: 85-95
40. Nemes S, Jonasson JM, Genell A, Steineck G. Bias in odds ratios by logistic regression modelling and sample size. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9: 56