-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Next generation sequencing offers benefit of improved health through knowledge, but comes with challenges, such as inevitable incidental findings (IFs). The applicability of recommended criteria for disclosure of individual results when applied to disclosure of IFs is not well known. The purpose of this study was to examine how medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) chairs perceive the importance of recommended criteria when applied to genetic/genomic IFs. We conducted telephone interviews with medical genetic specialists (genetic counselors, genetic nurses, medical geneticists, laboratory professionals), genomic researchers, and IRB chairs (N = 103). Respondents rated and discussed the importance of nine recommended criteria regarding disclosure of genetic/genomic IFs. Stakeholders agreed the most important criteria for disclosure were: (1) the IF points to a life-threatening condition; (2) there is a treatment; (3) individuals indicate in writing they wanted to be informed of IFs. Criteria rated less important were: analytic validity, high penetrance, association with a young age of onset and relative risk more than 2.0. Respondents indicated that some technical criteria were confusing, and in need of context. Our findings suggest that development of guidelines regarding management of IF include multiple stakeholders' perspectives and be based on a common language.
Journal of Genetic Counseling 04/2013; · 1.77 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Genomic research can produce findings unrelated to a study's aims. The purpose of this study was to examine researcher and Institutional Review Board (IRB) chair perspectives on genomic incidental findings (GIFs).
Nineteen genomic researchers and 34 IRB chairs from 42 institutions participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Researchers and chairs described GIFs within their respective roles. Few had direct experience with disclosure of GIFs. Researchers favored policies where a case by case determination regarding whether GIF disclosure would be offered after discovery, whereas IRB chairs preferred policies where procedures for disclosure would be determined prior to approval of the research.
Researcher and IRB chair perspectives on management of GIFs overlap, but each group provides a unique perspective on decisions regarding disclosure of GIFs in research. Engagement of both groups is essential in efforts to provide guidance for researchers and IRBs regarding disclosure of GIFs in research.
Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 02/2012; 16(6):508-13. · 1.11 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It is unclear how genomic incidental finding (GIF) prospects should be addressed in informed consent processes. An exploratory study on this topic was conducted with 34 purposively sampled Chairs of institutional review boards (IRBs) at centers conducting genome-wide association studies. Most Chairs (96%) reported no knowledge of local IRB requirements regarding GIFs and informed consent. Chairs suggested consent processes should address the prospect of, and study disclosure policy on, GIFs; GIF management and follow-up; potential clinical significance of GIFs; potential risks of GIF disclosure; an opportunity for participants to opt out of GIF disclosure; and duration of the researcher's duty to disclose GIFs. Chairs were concerned about participant disclosure preferences changing over time; inherent limitations in determining the scope and accuracy of claims about GIFs; and making consent processes longer and more complex. IRB Chair and other stakeholder perspectives can help advance informed consent efforts to accommodate GIF prospects.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 12/2011; 6(4):53-67. · 1.27 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite important recent work, US public attitudes toward specific biobank consent models are not well understood. Public opinion data can help shape efforts to develop ethically sound and publicly trusted mechanisms for informing and consenting prospective biobank donors. The purpose of this study was to explore public perspectives toward a range of consent models currently being used or considered for use among comprehensive US biobanks.
The study used an exploratory mixed-methods design, using focus groups and telephone surveys. Eligible participants were English-speaking residents in the catchment area of a comprehensive biobank being developed at the University of Iowa.
Forty-eight participants in seven focus groups and 751 survey participants were recruited. Biobanks were unfamiliar to almost all study participants but were seen as valuable resources. Most focus group (63%) and survey (67%) participants preferred a prospective opt-in over an opt-out consent approach. Broad, research-unspecific consent was preferred over categorical and study-specific consent models for purposes of approving future research use.
Many individuals may want to make an active and informed choice at the point of being approached for biobank participation but are prepared to consent broadly to future research use and to forego additional choices as a result.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 05/2011; 13(9):821-31. · 3.92 Impact Factor
