ArticlePsychiatric genetics2015
Adolescent perspectives on the return of individual results in genomic addiction research.
Article in Psychiatric genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Participants' Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.Personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Article
- Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research?BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Returning Results: Let's Be Honest!Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers · 2017Article
- Adolescents with substance use disorder and assent/consent: Empirical data on understanding biobank risks in genomic research.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study surveyed all adolescents who were enrolled in behavioral genomic research and provided DNA to a biobank, including 320 patients undergoing treatment for substance and conduct problems (SCPs) and 109 non-SCP controls. Participants selected from three options on the return of individual genomic results (RIR) and rated eight methods of re-contact. Most individuals with SCPs (77.8%) and non-SCP controls (72.5%) wanted RIR involving health or behavioral implications. The majority of individuals with SCPs (67.2%) and non-SCP controls (69.7%) indicated that phone re-contact was 'best', with e-mail (22.5% SCPs, 33.9% non-SCPs) and social networking websites (21.3% SCPs, 20.2% non-SCPs) being viable options. These results suggest a layered approach for RIR: phone calls, followed by e-mails and a secure message to a social networking account. Data from this special and vulnerable population, which includes youth involved in the criminal justice system and substantial minority participation, bring an essential and missing perspective to the discussion of RIR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.