Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29806518›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2018

Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences.

Michelle L McGowan, Cynthia A Prows, Melissa DeJonckheere, William B Brinkman, Lisa Vaughn, Melanie F Myers

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Shared Decision-Making Within Families About Returning to Sport After Recovery From Concussion: Exploring Parent and Adolescent Perspectives.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Decisional Conflict Among Adolescents and Young Adults Before and After Facilitated Decision-Making About Learning Personal Genomic Information.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle L McGowan1 Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA.
Cynthia A Prows1 Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA.
Melissa DeJonckheere3 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
William B Brinkman1 Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA.
Lisa Vaughn1 Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA.
Melanie F Myers1 Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6845-5226
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

Better Outcomes for Children: Promoting Excellence in Healthcare Genomics to Inform PolicyU01HG008666 · NHGRI · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI HARLEY, JOHN BARKER · 2015 to 2019
$4.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008666
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Opportunities to participate in genomic sequencing studies, as well as recommendations to screen for variants in 59 medically actionable genes anytime clinical genomic sequencing is performed, indicate adolescents will increasingly be involved in decisions about learning secondary findings from genome sequencing. However, how adolescents want to be involved in such decisions is unknown. We conducted five focus groups with adolescents (2) and parents (3) to learn their decisional preferences about return of genomic research results to adolescents. Discussions about decisional preferences centered around three themes: feelings about receiving genomic risk information, adolescent involvement and capacity to participate in decision-making, and recommendations for parental versus collaborative decision-making. We address the contested space between parental duties to act in their children's best interests when choosing which results to return and adolescents' desires to make autonomous decisions. A collaborative decision-making approach is recommended for obtaining consent from adolescents and their parents for genome sequencing research.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGenetic ResearchGenetic TestingGenomicsInformed ConsentParentsPatient PreferenceAdolescentAdolescent BehaviorAdultCooperative BehaviorDisclosureFemaleFocus GroupsGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansadolescent preferencesdecision aidfocus groupgenetic testinggenome sequencingparticipant preferencespediatricsreturn of individual genomic research resultsreturn of results

Identifiers

PMID29806518
PMCPMC6146016
OpenAlexW2806678685

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.