Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28361104›Full record

ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2017

Discordance in selected designee for return of genomic findings in the event of participant death and estate executor.

Jessie L Goodman, Laura M Amendola, Martha Horike-Pyne, Susan B Trinidad, Stephanie M Fullerton, Wylie Burke, Gail P Jarvik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pragmatic Tools for Sharing Genomic Research Results with the Relatives of Living and Deceased Research Participants.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2018
    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

7 authors.

Jessie L GoodmanDivision of Medical Genetics University of Washington Seattle Washington.ORCID 0000-0003-3290-068X
Laura M AmendolaDivision of Medical Genetics University of Washington Seattle Washington.
Martha Horike-PyneDivision of Medical Genetics University of Washington Seattle Washington.
Susan B TrinidadDepartment of Bioethics and Humanities University of Washington Seattle Washington.
Stephanie M FullertonDepartment of Bioethics and Humanities University of Washington Seattle Washington.
Wylie BurkeDivision of Medical GeneticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleWashington; Department of Bioethics and HumanitiesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleWashington.
Gail P JarvikDivision of Medical GeneticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleWashington; Department of Genome SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleWashington.

Funding

Variation, Function, and Disease Supplement ProgramU01HG008657 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI David Russell Crosslin, Gail Pairitz Jarvik · 2015 to 2026
$13.4M
Clinical sequencing in cancer: Clinical ethical and technological studiesU01HG006507 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JARVIK, GAIL PAIRITZ · 2012 to 2016
$10.6M
Genomic Health Care and the Medically UnderservedP50HG003374 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BURKE, WYLIE G. · 2004 to 2014
$9.8M
CSER RoRC Centralized Support Coordinating CenterU01HG007307 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BURKE, WYLIE G., JARVIK, GAIL PAIRITZ · 2013 to 2016
$3.6M
NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG003374NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006507NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG007307NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008657
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLegal and ethical questions arise regarding disseminating genetic research results to family members in the event of a research participant's death; failure to return or return to legal next of kin or estate executor may not reflect participant desires. We sought to determine participant preferences for whether and to whom they would like their data released in the case of their death prior to receiving genomic results, focusing on whether the person selected was also their estate executor.

methodsThe University of Washington NEXT Medicine Study of the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research program previously reported participant preferences regarding designating an individual to receive genomic results in the event of death, including whether they want results shared, and if so, with what person. Participants were also asked whether this designee is executor of their will or estate.

resultsTo date, 61 individuals were asked about the concordance of their study designee and legal representative: 42 (69%) reported having a will or estate plan and of these, 14 (33%) chose someone other than their executor to receive their results. For the 14 who chose someone other than their estate executor to receive genetic results, 12 (86%) chose a family member, typically a biological relative, as their designee. Those with a different genomic designee than their executor were less likely to be partnered (

conclusionFor one-third of our participants, the individual deemed most appropriate by the participant to receive their genomic results was not the executor. In the absence of an explicit designation, HIPAA may prohibit access to genomic results to persons other than the executor; hence asking for designation at the time of study enrollment (or initiation of clinical testing) is important.

Indexed as

Executorfamily communicationgenomic sequencingreturn of results

Identifiers

PMID28361104
PMCPMC5370224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.