Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28357777›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2017

Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice.

Kerry A Ryan, Raymond G De Vries, Wendy R Uhlmann, J Scott Roberts, Michele C Gornick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era.Current genetic medicine reports · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kerry A RyanCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 14, G016, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA. kryanz@med.umich.edu.
Raymond G De VriesCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 14, G016, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA.
Wendy R UhlmannCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 14, G016, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA.
J Scott RobertsCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 14, G016, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA.
Michele C GornickCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 14, G016, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA.

Funding

Sequencing, Analysis, and Interpretation of SequencingUM1HG006508 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI PIENTA, KENNETH J., PIENTA, KENNETH J. · 2013 to 2016
$7.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS UM1 HG006508
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The therapeutic use of genomic sequencing creates novel and unresolved questions about cost, clinical efficacy, access, and the disclosure of sequencing results. The disclosure of the secondary results of sequencing poses a particularly challenging ethical problem. Experts disagree about which results should be shared and public input - especially important for the creation of disclosure policies - is complicated by the complex nature of genetics. Recognizing the value of deliberative democratic methods for soliciting informed public opinion on matters like these, we recruited participants from a clinical research site for an all-day deliberative democracy (DD) session. Participants were introduced to the clinical and ethical issues associated with genomic sequencing, after which they discussed the tradeoffs and offered their opinions about policies for the return of secondary results. Participants (n = 66; mean age = 57 (SD = 15); 70% female; 76% white) were divided into 10 small groups (5 to 8 participants each) allowing interactive deliberation on policy options for the return of three categories of secondary results: 1) medically actionable results; 2) risks for adult-onset disorders identified in children; and 3) carrier status for autosomal recessive disorders. In our qualitative analysis of the session transcripts, we found that while participants favored choice and had a preference for making information available, they also acknowledged the risks (and benefits) of learning such information. Our research reveals the nuanced reasoning used by members of the public when weighing the pros and cons of receiving genomic information, enriching our understanding of the findings of surveys of attitudes regarding access to secondary results.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPublic OpinionAdultBase SequenceDisclosureFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMaleMiddle AgedSequence Analysis, DNADeliberative democracyDisclosure of resultsEthicsIncidental findingsParticipant preferencesPublic policyQualitative analysisReturn of genomic resultsSecondary results

Identifiers

PMID28357777
PMCPMC5620108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.