Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24919982›Full record

ArticleThe Hastings Center report

Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research.

Paul S Appelbaum, Erik Parens, Cameron R Waldman, Robert Klitzman, Abby Fyer, Josue Martinez, W Nicholson Price, Wendy K Chung

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Hastings Center report. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03421327 (Genetic Risk), which is not on this map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03421327 completednot on this map

Genetic Risk: Whether, When, and How to Tell Adolescents

TypeobservationalSponsorJohns Hopkins UniversityRan2017 to 2018Enrolled85ConditionsHuntington Disease, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Hereditary Cancer, Hereditary Non-polyposis Colon Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. The role of digital tools in the delivery of genomic medicine: enhancing patient-centered care.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Informed Consent in the Genomics Era.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Paul S Appelbaum
Erik Parens
Cameron R Waldman
Robert Klitzman
Abby Fyer
Josue Martinez
W Nicholson Price
Wendy K Chung

Funding

Center for Research on the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral GeneticsP50HG007257 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2013 to 2017
$5.4M
Impact of return of incidental genetic test results to research participants in tR01HG006600 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CHUNG, WENDY K, PHELAN, JO C · 2011 to 2013
$2.1M
Center for ELSI Research on Psychiatric Neurologic and Behavioral GeneticsP20HG005535 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2010 to 2012
$731k
Challenges of Informed Consent in Return of Data from Genomic ResearchR21HG006596 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2011 to 2012
$400k
NHGRI NIH HHS P20 HG005535NHGRI NIH HHS P20 HG005535-02NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG007257NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006600NHGRI NIH HHS R21 HG006596
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic research-including whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing-has a growing presence in contemporary biomedical investigation. The capacity of sequencing techniques to generate results that go beyond the primary aims of the research-historically referred to as "incidental findings"-has generated considerable discussion as to how this information should be handled-that is, whether incidental results should be returned, and if so, which ones.Federal regulations governing most human subjects research in the United States require the disclosure of "the procedures to be followed" in the research as part of the informed consent process. It seems reasonable to assume-and indeed, many commentators have concluded-that genomic investigators will be expected to inform participants about, among other procedures, the prospect that incidental findings will become available and the mechanisms for dealing with them. Investigators, most of whom will not have dealt with these issues before, will face considerable challenges in framing meaningful disclosures for research participants.To help in this task, we undertook to identify the elements that should be included in the informed consent process related to incidental findings. We did this by surveying a large number of genomic researchers (n = 241) and by conducting in-depth interviews with a smaller number of researchers (n = 28) and genomic research participants (n = 20). Based on these findings, it seems clear to us that routine approaches to informed consent are not likely to be effective in genomic research in which the prospect of incidental findings exists. Ensuring that participants' decisions are informed and meaningful will require innovative approaches to dealing with the consent issue. We have identified four prototypical models of a consent process for return of incidental findings.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchGenetic TestingGenome, HumanGenomicsHumansIncidental FindingsInformed ConsentTruth DisclosureUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24919982
PMCPMC4107028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.