ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics
Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences.
Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exploring perspectives of interest-holders on the use of health and genomic data from deceased participants in research: An updated systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Pooled it
- Older research participants are motivated to receive genetic results for the benefit of younger relatives.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Development of a digital risk-prediction tool based on family health history for the general population: legal and ethical implications.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Returning individual research results to participants: Values, preferences, and expectations.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Review
- Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2023Review
- Immortal data: a qualitative exploration of patients' understandings of genomic data.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Comparison of factors influencing the willingness to donate biospecimens among guardians of children with cancer and adult cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- "If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens.New genetics and society · 2022Article
- To use or not to use? an ethical analysis of access to data and samples of a deceased patient for genetic diagnostic and research purposes.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2022Article
- Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.Personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Health data research on sudden cardiac arrest: perspectives of survivors and their next-of-kin.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Perspectives regarding family disclosure of genetic research results in three racial and ethnic minority populations.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Perspectives regarding privacy in clinical research among research professionals from the Arab region: an exploratory qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death?
methodsPreferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively.
resultsFifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing.
conclusionsAlthough additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy-without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families-cannot be the sole foundation of policy.
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.