Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39325315›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2024

How to communicate and what to disclose to participants in a recall-by-genotype research approach: a multistep empirical study.

Katharina Tschigg, Luca Consoli, Norbert Brüggemann, Andrew A Hicks, Ciara Staunton, Deborah Mascalzoni, Roberta Biasiotto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Katharina TschiggDepartment of Cellular, Computational, and Integrative Biology, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5146-3492
Luca ConsoliInstitute for Science in Society, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Norbert BrüggemannDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5969-6899
Andrew A HicksInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6320-0411
Ciara StauntonInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3185-440X
Deborah MascalzoniInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy. deborah.mascalzoni@crb.uu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4156-1464
Roberta BiasiottoInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8845-9670

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recall-by-genotype (RbG) is a bottom-up approach using existing genetic data to design follow-up stratified studies. Genetic information may be partially disclosed at invitation, thus raising ethical issues which call for defined best practices for disclosure and communication in RbG approaches. Within the context of the ProtectMove sub-project of the Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, we investigated research participant perspectives on RbG communication strategies (Step 1 and 4, questionnaire with a subsample of CHRIS participants with and without previous experience of RbG, respectively). Additionally, we explored researchers' and study personnel's experience with RbG (Step 2 and 3, focus group discussion). In step 1 (N = 95), participants were generally satisfied with the study process. Most (71.6%) wanted to know their carrier status for personal and collective benefit. Tailored disclosure strategies and transparent, effective, and well-thought-out communication approaches were advocated by study personnel (Step 2, N = 6) and researchers (Step 3, N = 7). Challenges in dealing with uncertainty, concerns caused by RbG invitations, and the possibility of misunderstanding were also raised. In step 4 (N = 369), participants valued being informed of study details at the first invitation stage, and generally felt comfortable towards RbG study invitations (58.5%) and to receiving genetic information after the study (58.5-81.6%). Comfort and perceived impact of disclosure of genetic information varied according to the type of variant being potentially disclosed. This study suggested designing communication strategies, based on clear and understandable explanations, sensitive to participant expectations and preferences, developing case-by-case solutions for disclosure.

Indexed as

CommunicationDisclosure of genetic informationInformed consentPolicyRecall-by-genotypeResearch participants

Identifiers

PMID39325315
PMCPMC11645387

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.