Informed Consent for Genetic Research

JAMA ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 275 (14) ◽  
pp. 1085 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl T. Kelsey
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Raspa ◽  
Rebecca Moultrie ◽  
Laura Wagner ◽  
Anne Edwards ◽  
Sara Andrews ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Data from electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used in the field of genetic research to further precision medicine initiatives. However, many of these efforts exclude individuals with intellectual disabilities, which often stem from genetic conditions. To include this important subpopulation in EHR research, important ethical, legal, and social issues should be considered. OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to review prior research to better understand what ethical, legal, and social issues may need further investigation when considering the research use of EHRs for individuals with genetic conditions that may result in intellectual disability. This information will be valuable in developing methods and best practices for involving this group in research given they are considered a vulnerable population that may need special research protections. METHODS We conducted a scoping review to examine issues related to the use of EHRs for research purposes and those more broadly associated with genetic research. The initial search yielded a total of 460 unique citations. We used an evaluative coding process to determine relevancy for inclusion. RESULTS This approach resulted in 59 articles in the following areas: informed consent, privacy and security, return of results, and vulnerable populations. The review included several models of garnering informed consent in EHR or genetic research, including tiered or categorical, blanket or general, open, and opt-out models. Second, studies reported on patients’ concerns regarding the privacy and security of EHR or genetic data, such as who has access, type of data use in research, identifiability, and risks associated with privacy breach. The literature on return of research results using biospecimens examined the dissension in the field, particularly when sharing individualized genetic results. Finally, work involving vulnerable populations highlighted special considerations when conducting EHR or genetic research. CONCLUSIONS The results frame important questions for researchers to consider when designing EHR studies, which include individuals with intellectual disabilities, including appropriate safeguards and protections.


2019 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 29-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Sundby ◽  
Merete Watt Boolsen ◽  
Kristoffer Sølvsten Burgdorf ◽  
Henrik Ullum ◽  
Thomas Folkmann Hansen ◽  
...  

AbstractBackground:Genomic sequencing plays an increasing role in genetic research, also in psychiatry. This raises challenges concerning the validity and type of the informed consent and the return of incidental findings. However, no solution currently exists on the best way to obtain the informed consent and deliver findings to research subjects.Aims:This study aims to explore the attitudes among potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research toward the consenting procedure and the delivery of incidental findings.Methods:We developed a cross-sectional web-based survey among five groups of stakeholders. A total of 2637 stakeholders responded: 241 persons with a mental disorder, 671 relatives, 1623 blood donors, 74 psychiatrists, and 28 clinical geneticists.Results:The stakeholders wanted active involvement as 92.7% preferred a specific consent and 85.1% wanted to receive information through a dynamic consent procedure. The majority of stakeholders preferred to receive genomic information related to serious or life-threatening health conditions through direct contact (69.5%) with a health professional, i.e. face-to-face consultation or telephone consultation (82.4%). Persons with mental disorders and relatives did not differ in their attitudes from the other stakeholder groups.Conclusion:The findings illustrate that the stakeholders want to be more actively involved and consider consent as a reciprocal transaction between the involved subjects and the researchers in the project. The results highlight the importance of collaboration between researchers and clinical geneticists as the latter are trained, through their education and clinical experience, to return and explain genomic data to patients, relatives, and research subjects.


JAMA ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 274 (22) ◽  
pp. 1786-1792 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. W. Clayton

Author(s):  
Yulia Andreevna Melikhova

The subject of this article is the analysis of mainly foreign case law on the transfer of genetic information in the spheres of medicine and scientific research.. The author addresses the positions of courts on private issues such as: the responsibility of attending physician and third parties to inform relatives of a patient about the risks of genetic diseases, rights of relatives to access genetic information after a patient has died, acquisition of a voluntary informed consent for participating in research. Comparison is conducted on approaches of the courts in other regions and countries in reviewing similar cases. The novelty of the research lies in the choice of the topic and obtained conclusions. The author analyzes foreign case law on the transfer of genetic information in the medical and research spheres, which has not previously been a subject of separate study in the Russian literature. The conclusion is formulated on the absence of universal position of the courts on the question of understanding the content of genetic information, limits of the rights of relatives to receive genetic information of a patient. The courts are unanimous in their decisions (or the cases are isolated) on the matter that participation in genetic research must be preceded by a voluntary informed consent, which can be presumed and applies exclusively to the research agreed to. The participants do not have rights to results of the research, and the discovered genes cannot be patented by the researchers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document