ArticleAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part A2017
Stakeholders in psychiatry and their attitudes toward receiving pertinent and incident findings in genomic research.
Article in American journal of medical genetics. Part A, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of preferences for additional findings from genomic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Pooled it
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- A framework for the evaluation and reporting of incidental findings in clinical genomic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- 'Research ethics · 2024Article
- Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.Personalized medicine · 2021Review
- "It's all about delivery": researchers and health professionals' views on the moral challenges of accessing neurobiological information in the context of psychosis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Return of results in a global survey of psychiatric genetics researchers: practices, attitudes, and knowledge.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Ubuntu philosophy and the consensus regarding incidental findings in genomic research: a heuristic approach.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- International Society of Psychiatric Genetics Ethics Committee: Issues facing us.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Review
- Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Article
- Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Article
- Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research.Human genomics · 2018Article
- Stakeholders in psychiatry and their attitudes toward receiving pertinent and incident findings in genomic research.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Increasingly more psychiatric research studies use whole genome sequencing or whole exome sequencing. Consequently, researchers face difficult questions, such as which genomic findings to return to research participants and how. This study aims to gain more knowledge on the attitudes among potential research participants and health professionals toward receiving pertinent and incidental findings. A cross-sectional online survey was developed to investigate the attitudes among research participants toward receiving genomic findings. A total of 2,637 stakeholders responded: 241 persons with mental disorders, 671 relatives, 1,623 blood donors, 74 psychiatrists, and 28 clinical geneticists. Stakeholders wanted both pertinent findings (95%) and incidental findings (91%) to be made available for research participants. The majority (77%) stated that researchers should not actively search for incidental findings. Persons with mental disorders and relatives were generally more positive about receiving any kind of findings than clinical geneticists and psychiatrists. Compared with blood donors, persons with mental disorders reported to be more positive about receiving raw genomic data and information that is not of serious health importance. Psychiatrists and clinical geneticists were less positive about receiving genomic findings compared with blood donors. The attitudes toward receiving findings were very positive. Stakeholders were willing to refrain from receiving incidental information if it could compromise the research. Our results suggest that research participants consider themselves as altruistic participants. This study offers valuable insight, which may inform future programs aiming to develop new strategies to target issues relating to the return of findings in genomic research.
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.