ArticleJournal of community genetics2021
Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of preferences for additional findings from genomic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Pooled it
- Precision cancer medicine and the doctor-patient relationship: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- Reciprocity in research: Participant views on return of results in the WATCH-PD qualitative study.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- How to communicate and what to disclose to participants in a recall-by-genotype research approach: a multistep empirical study.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Ethical and social reflections on the proposed European Health Data Space.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Participant perspective on the recall-by-genotype research approach: a mixed-method embedded study with participants of the CHRIS study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Advancing Precision Medicine in South Tyrol, Italy: A Public Health Development Proposal for a Bilingual, Autonomous Province.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Personal Health Record for Personalizing Research and Care Trajectories: A Proof of Concept Pilot with Diet in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Ten years of dynamic consent in the CHRIS study: informed consent as a dynamic process.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Legal, financial and organizational challenges and the absence of coherent international guidelines and legal frameworks still discourage many genetic studies to share individual research results with their participants. Studies and institutions deciding to return genetic results will need to design their own study-specific return policy after due consideration of the ethical responsibilities. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, a healthy cohort study, did not foresee the return of individual genomic results during its baseline phase. However, as it was expected that the follow-up phase would generate an increasing amount of reliable genetic results, an update of the return of research results (RoRR) policy became necessary. To inform this revision, an empirical study using mixed methods was developed to investigate the views of CHRIS research participants (20), local general practitioners (3) and the local genetic counselling service (1). During the interviews, three different examples of potential genetic results with a very diverse potential impact on participants were presented: breast cancer, Parkinson disease and Huntington disease. The CHRIS participants also completed a short questionnaire, collecting personal information and asking for a self-evaluation of their knowledge about genetics. This study made it clear that research participants want to make autonomous decisions on the disclosure or non-disclosure of their results. While the motivations for participants' decisions were very diverse, we were able to identify several common criteria that had a strong influence on their choices. Providing information on these factors is crucial to enable participants to make truly informed decisions.
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.