Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project.
ABSTRACT: To assess biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results.We conducted a cross-sectional survey of participants in the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity biobank. Respondents were surveyed about preferences for disclosure, importance of disclosure, communication of results with practitioners, and sharing of results after respondents' death. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess independent sociodemographic and clinical predictors of disclosure preferences. Data collection occurred from June 6, 2011, to June 25, 2012.Among 1154 biobank participants, 555 (48%) responded. Most thought that research result disclosure was important (90%). Preference for disclosure varied, depending on availability of disease treatment (90% vs 64%, P<.001), high vs low disease risk (79% vs 66%, P<.001), and serious vs mild disease (83% vs 68%, P<.001). More than half of respondents (57%) preferred disclosure even when there is uncertainty about the results' meaning, and 87% preferred disclosure if the disease is highly heritable. Older age was positively associated with interest in disclosure, whereas female sex, nonwhite race, diabetes mellitus, and depression and/or anxiety were negatively associated with disclosure. More than half of respondents (52%) would want their results returned to their nearest biological relative after death.OurGenes biobank participants report strong preferences for disclosure of research results, and most would designate a relative to receive results after death. Participant preferences for serious vs mild disease, high vs low disease risk, and availability of disease treatment differed significantly. Future research should consider family members' preferences for receiving research results from enrolled research participants.
Project description:Discussions about disclosing individual genetic research results include calls to consider participants' preferences. In this study, parents of Boston Children's Hospital patients set preferences for disclosure based on disease preventability and severity, and could exclude mental health, developmental, childhood degenerative, and adult-onset disorders. Participants reviewed hypothetical reports and reset preferences, if desired. Among 661 participants who initially wanted all results (64%), 1% reset preferences. Among 336 participants who initially excluded at least one category (36%), 38% reset preferences. Participants who reset preferences added 0.9 categories, on average; and their mean satisfaction on 0 to 10 scales increased from 4.7 to 7.2 ( p < .001). Only 2% reduced the number of categories they wanted disclosed. Findings demonstrate the benefits of providing examples of preference options and the tendency of participants to want results disclosed. Findings also suggest that preference-setting models that do not provide specific examples of results could underestimate participants' desires for information.
Project description:The lack of data on perspectives of racial and ethnic minority populations regarding family disclosure of individual research results (IRR) hinders the development of return of IRR policies and practices that are meaningful and culturally appropriate in diverse populations. This research aims to uncover preferences regarding family disclosure of IRR and identify factors that may shape the preferences in three minority populations. Nine focus groups with 68 adult African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were willing to share IRR with relatives who elected to know and preferred a participant-driven (vs. researcher-driven) decision-making process. Privacy of personal information was deemed important, as were anticipated familial benefits from genetic information, except when improper use of the information was suspected. Factors influencing family disclosure decisions included the family's biological and emotional closeness, and participants' perceived mental preparedness of the relative. Family disclosure of IRR among racial and ethnic minority individuals is a complex decision-making process wherein issues of individual privacy are entangled with family dynamic and familial benefit considerations. These data suggest that policies surrounding family disclosure of IRR should carefully consider participant preferences and adopt a participant-driven approach.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Assess process, uptake, validity and resource needs for return of actionable research findings to biobank participants. METHODS:Participants were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter biorepository of childhood onset heart disease. Clinically actionable research findings were reviewed by a Return of Research Results Committee (RRR) and returned to the physician or disclosed directly to the participant through a research genetic counselor. Action taken following receipt of this information was reviewed. RESULTS:Genetic data was generated in 1963 of 7408 participants. Fifty-nine new findings were presented to the RRR committee; 20 (34%) were deemed reportable. Twelve were returned to the physician, of which 7 were disclosed to participants (median time to disclosure, 192?days). Seven findings were returned to the research genetic counselor; all have been disclosed (median time to disclosure, 19?days). Twelve families (86%) opted for referral to clinical genetics after disclosure of findings; 7 results have been validated, 5 results are pending. Average cost of return and disclosure per reportable finding incurred by the research program was $750 when utilizing a research genetic counselor; clinical costs associated with return were not included. CONCLUSIONS:Return of actionable research findings was faster if disclosed directly to the participant by a research genetic counselor. There was a high acceptability amongst participants for receiving the findings, for referral to clinical genetics, and for clinical validation of research findings, with all referred cases being clinically confirmed.
Project description:In clinical trials which target pathophysiological mechanisms associated with Alzheimer's disease, research participants who are recruited based on biomarker test results should be informed about their increased risk of developing Alzheimer's dementia. This paper presents the results of a qualitative focus group study of attitudes and concerns toward learning information about biomarker-based risk status among healthy research participants in the United Kingdom and Spain and people with dementia and their supporters/caregivers from countries represented in the European Working Group of People with Dementia of Alzheimer Europe. The study identified expectations related to learning risk status and preferences related to the content, quality, and follow-up of the disclosure process. The latter emphasize distinctions between risk and diagnoses, the importance of clear information about risk, and suggestions for risk reduction, as well as expectations for follow up and support. The implications of these preferences for practice are discussed. Providing details of research participants' experience and views may serve as a guide for the development of processes for the responsible disclosure of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers.
Project description:In clinical practice and in research, there is an ongoing debate on how to return incidental and secondary findings of genetic tests to patients and research participants. Previous investigations have found that most of the people most of the time are in favor of full disclosure of results. Yet, the option to reject disclosure, based on the so-called right not to know, can be valuable especially for some vulnerable subgroups of recipients. In the present study we investigated variations in informational preferences in the context of genetic testing in a large and diverse German sample. This survey examined health care professionals, patients, participants of genetic counseling sessions and members of the general population (N = 518). Survey participants were assessed regarding their openness to learning about findings under various hypothetical scenarios, as well as their attitudes about the doctor-patient-relationship in a disclosure situation and about informational transfer to third parties. While the majority of participants wanted to learn about their findings, the extent of support of disclosure varied with features of the hypothetical diagnostic scenarios (e.g., controllability of disease; abstract vs. concrete scenario description) and demographic characteristics of the subjects. For example, subjects with higher levels of education were more selective with regards to the kind of information they want to receive than those with lower levels of education. We discuss implications of these findings for the debate about the right not to know and for the clinical practice of informed consent procedures.
Project description:There are ongoing debates on issues relating to returning individual research results (IRRs) and incidental findings (IFs) generated by genetic research in population-based biobanks. To understand how to appropriately return genetic results from biobank studies, we surveyed preferences for returning IRRs and IFs among participants of the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project (TMM). We mailed a questionnaire to individuals enrolled in the TMM cohort study (Group 1; n=1031) and a group of Tohoku region residents (Group 2; n=2314). The respondents were required to be over 20 years of age. Nearly 90% of Group 1 participants and over 80% of Group 2 participants expressed a preference for receiving their genetic test results. Furthermore, over 60% of both groups preferred to receive their genetic results 'from a genetic specialist.' A logistic regression analysis revealed that engaging in 'health-conscious behaviors' (such as regular physical activity, having a healthy diet, intentionally reducing alcohol intake and/or smoking and so on) was significant, positively associated with preferring to receive their genetic test results (odds ratio=2.397 (Group 1) and 1.897 (Group 2)). Our findings provided useful information and predictors regarding the return of IRRs and IFs in a population-based biobank.
Project description:The effects of disclosing financial interests to potential research participants are not well understood.To examine the effects of financial interest disclosures on potential research participants' attitudes toward clinical research.Computerized experiment conducted with 3,623 adults in the United States with either diabetes mellitus or asthma, grouped by lesser and greater severity. Respondents read a description of a hypothetical clinical trial relevant to their diagnosis that included a financial disclosure statement. Respondents received 1 of 5 disclosure statements.Willingness to participate in the hypothetical clinical trial, relative importance of information about the financial interest, change in trust after reading the disclosure statement, surprise regarding the financial interest, and perceived effect of the financial interest on the quality of the clinical trial.Willingness to participate in the hypothetical clinical trial did not differ substantially among the types of financial disclosures. Respondents viewed the disclosed information as less important than other factors in deciding to participate. Disclosures were associated with some respondents trusting the researchers less, although trust among some respondents increased. Most respondents were not surprised to learn of financial interests. Researchers owning equity were viewed as more troubling than researchers who were compensated for the costs of research through per capita payments.Aside from a researcher holding an equity interest, the disclosure to potential research participants of financial interests in research, as recommended in recent policies, is unlikely to affect willingness to participate in research.
Project description:PURPOSE:To examine the role of radiation oncology (RO) graduates' application patterns and personal preferences in current labor concerns. METHODS AND MATERIALS:An anonymous, voluntary survey was distributed to 665 domestic RO graduates from 2013 to 2017. Questions assessed graduates' regional (Northeast [NE]; Midwest [MW]; South [SO]; West [WT]) job type and population size preferences. Top regional choice was compared across other categorical and numerical variables using the ?2 test and analysis of variance, respectively. RESULTS:Complete responses were obtained from 299 (45.0% response rate) participants: 82 (27.4%), 74 (24.7%), 85 (28.4%), and 58 (19.4%) graduated from NE, MW, SO, and WT programs. The most to least commonly applied regions were SO (69.2%), MW (55.9%), and then NE/WT (55.2% each). The first and last regional choices were the WT (29.4%) and MW (15.7%), respectively. The most and least common application and top choice preferences were consistent in terms of city size: >500,000 (86.0% and 64.5%, respectively) and <100,001 (26.1% and 7.0%, respectively). The majority of applicants applied to both academic and nonacademic positions (60.9%), with top job type choice being equally split. The majority of respondents independently received a job offer in their preferred region (75.3%), city population size (72.6%) or job type (81.9%). Additionally, 52.5% received a job offer that included all three preferences. Those who underwent residency training (44.3% vs 62.0%-83.6%, P < .001) or medical schooling (50.7% vs 56.3%-75.6%, P < .001) or grew up in the MW (60.8% vs 70.0%-74.7%, P < .001) were least likely to choose this region as their top regional choice compared with other regions. CONCLUSIONS:The MW and jobs in smaller cities are less appealing to RO graduates, even if they receive training in the MW, which may contribute to current job market concerns. Nonetheless, the majority of respondents received a job offer in the region, population size, and job type of their top choice. Assessing prospective candidates' city size and geographic preferences and prioritizing applicants who are compatible with positions may help address potential job market discrepancies.
Project description:Background :Residents may be commonly involved with medical errors and need faculty support when disclosing these to patients. Objective :We characterized residents' preferences for faculty involvement and support during the error disclosure process. Methods :We surveyed residents from internal medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, general and orthopedic surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology residency programs at the University of Toronto in 2014-2015 about their preferences for faculty involvement across a variety of different error scenarios (ie, error type, severity, and proximity) and for elements of support they perceive to be most helpful during the disclosure process. Results :Over 90% of the 192 respondents (N = 538, response rate 36%) wanted direct involvement in the error disclosure process, irrespective of type or severity of the error. Residents were relatively comfortable disclosing prescription and communication errors without direct faculty involvement but preferred faculty involvement when disclosing diagnostic and management errors. When errors were severe, many residents still wanted to be involved but preferred having faculty lead the disclosure. Residents particularly wanted to participate in the process when they felt responsible for the error. Residents highly valued receiving faculty advice on how to manage consequences and how to prevent future errors in preparing for disclosure, as well as receiving postdisclosure feedback and personal support. Conclusions :Residents are willing participants in the error disclosure process and have specific preferences for faculty involvement and support. These findings can inform faculty development to ensure appropriate support and supervision for residents when disclosing errors to patients.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Disclosure of pathogenic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants was implemented. The impact and costs, including confirmatory genetic testing in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory, were evaluated.<h4>Methods</h4>We exome sequenced 240 cases with thoracic aortic dissection and 258 controls, then examined 11 aortopathy genes. Pathogenic variants in 6 aortopathy genes (COL3A1, FBN1, LOX, PRKG1, SMAD3, and TGFBR2) were identified in 26 participants, representing 10.8% of the cohort (26/240). A second research sample was used to validate the initial findings. Mailed letters to participants disclosed that a potentially disease causing DNA alteration had been identified (neither the gene nor variant was disclosed). Participants were offered clinical genetic counseling and confirmatory genetic testing in a CLIA laboratory.<h4>Results</h4>Excluding 6 participants who were deceased or lost to follow-up, 20 participants received the disclosure letter, 10 of whom proceeded with genetic counseling, confirmatory genetic testing, and enrolled in a survey study. Participants reported satisfaction with the letter (4.2?±?0.7) and genetic counseling (4.4?±?0.4; [out of 5, respectively]). The psychosocial impact was characterized by low decisional regret (11.5?±?11.6) and distress (16.0?±?4.2, [out of 100, respectively]). The average cost for 26 participants was $400, including validation and sending letters. The average cost for those who received genetic counseling and CLIA laboratory confirmation was $605.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Participants were satisfied with the return of clinically significant biobank genetic results and CLIA laboratory testing; however, the process required significant time and resources. These findings illustrate the trade-offs involved for researchers considering returning research genetic results.