ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2020
Integrating stakeholder feedback in translational genomics research: an ethnographic analysis of a study protocol's evolution.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards better enrollment decision-making for perinatal clinical research: Reconsidering recruitment and consent processes to support family values and preferences.Seminars in perinatology · 2025Review
- Improving Care for Marginalized Populations at Risk for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Innovations that Expanded Reach in the CHARM Study.Public health genomics · 2024Article
- Lessons learned while starting multi-institutional genetics research in diverse populations: A report from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023Article
- Engaging Patient Advisory Committees to Inform a Genomic Cancer Risk Study: Lessons for Future Efforts.The Permanente journal · 2022Article
- Integration of stakeholder engagement from development to dissemination in genomic medicine research: Approaches and outcomes from the CSER Consortium.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Article
- Adaptation and early implementation of the PREdiction model for gene mutations (PREMMFamilial cancer · 2022Article
- Barriers to family history knowledge and family communication among LGBTQ+ individuals in the context of hereditary cancer risk assessment.Journal of genetic counseling · 2022Article
- Development and early implementation of an Accessible, Relational, Inclusive and Actionable approach to genetic counseling: The ARIA model.Patient education and counseling · 2021Article
- Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Demonstrating 'respect for persons' in clinical research: findings from qualitative interviews with diverse genomics research participants.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study describes challenges faced while incorporating sometimes conflicting stakeholder feedback into study design and development of patient-facing materials for a translational genomics study aiming to reduce health disparities among diverse populations.
methodsWe conducted an ethnographic analysis of study documents including summaries of patient advisory committee meetings and interviews, reflective field notes written by study team members, and correspondence with our institutional review board (IRB). Through this analysis, we identified cross-cutting challenges for incorporating stakeholder feedback into development of our recruitment, risk assessment, and informed consent processes and materials.
resultsOur analysis revealed three key challenges: (1) balancing precision and simplicity in the design of study materials, (2) providing clinical care within the research context, and (3) emphasizing potential study benefits versus risks and limitations.
conclusionsWhile involving patient stakeholders in study design and materials development can increase inclusivity and responsiveness to patient needs, patient feedback may conflict with that of content area experts on the research team and IRBs who are tasked with overseeing the research. Our analysis highlights the need for further empirical research about ethical challenges when incorporating patient feedback into study design, and for dialogue with genomic researchers and IRB representatives about these issues.
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.