Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38528053›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024

Secondary use of genomic data: patients' decisions at point of testing and perspectives to inform international data sharing.

Melissa Martyn, Emily Forbes, Ling Lee, Anaita Kanga-Parabia, Rona Weerasuriya, Elly Lynch, Penny Gleeson, Clara Gaff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Genomic Data Governance Challenges Between Research and Clinical Care: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors.

Melissa MartynMurdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5263-4329
Emily ForbesMurdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0009-0006-0601-2522
Ling LeeMurdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0908-7280
Anaita Kanga-ParabiaMelbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Rona WeerasuriyaMurdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Elly LynchMurdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Penny GleesonDeakin Law school, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Clara GaffMurdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia. cgaff@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0160-4159

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International sharing of genomic data files arising from clinical testing of patients is essential to further improve genomic medicine. Whilst the general public are reluctant to donate DNA for research, the choices patients actually make about sharing their clinical genomic data for future re-use (research or clinical) are unknown. We ascertained the data-sharing choices of 1515 patients having genomic testing for inherited conditions or cancer treatment from clinical consent forms. To understand the experiences and preferences of these patients, surveys were administered after test consent (RR 73%). Almost all patients (98%) consented to share their data. Survey respondents' decision recall was high (90%), but poorer if English was an additional language (p < 0.001). Parents deciding on behalf of children were over-represented amongst data-sharing decliners (p = 0.047) and decliners were more likely to believe that stored data could be easily reidentified (p < 0.001). A quarter of respondents did not know if reidentification would be easy and 44% of them were concerned about this possibility. Of those willing to share data overseas (60%), 23% indicated the recipient researcher's country would affect their decision. Most respondents (89%) desired some ongoing control over research use of their data. Four preliminary data-sharing profiles emerged; their further development could inform tailored patient resources. Our results highlight considerations for establishment of systems to make clinical genomic data files available for reanalysis locally and across borders. Patients' willingness to share their data - and value of the resulting research - should encourage clinical laboratories to consider sharing data systematically for secondary uses.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingInformation DisseminationAdolescentAdultDecision MakingFemaleGenomicsHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38528053
PMCPMC11153578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.