P4-080: DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH RESULTS TO COGNITIVELY NORMAL RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. P812-P812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Gooblar ◽  
Catherine M. Roe ◽  
Natalie J. Selsor ◽  
Matthew Gabel ◽  
John Morris
PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0258646
Author(s):  
Danya F. Vears ◽  
Joel T. Minion ◽  
Stephanie J. Roberts ◽  
James Cummings ◽  
Mavis Machirori ◽  
...  

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.


2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 827-842
Author(s):  
Anya E.R. Prince ◽  
John M. Conley ◽  
Arlene M. Davis ◽  
Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz ◽  
R. Jean Cadigan

The growing practice of returning individual results to research participants has revealed a variety of interpretations of the multiple and sometimes conflicting duties that researchers may owe to participants. One particularly difficult question is the nature and extent of a researcher’s duty to facilitate a participant’s follow-up clinical care by placing research results in the participant’s medical record. The question is especially difficult in the context of genomic research. Some recent genomic research studies — enrolling patients as participants — boldly address the question with protocols dictating that researchers place research results directly into study participants’ existing medical records, without participant consent. Such privileging of researcher judgment over participant choice may be motivated by a desire to discharge a duty that researchers perceive themselves as owing to participants. However, the underlying ethical, professional, legal, and regulatory duties that would compel or justify this action have not been fully explored.


2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (7S_Part_3) ◽  
pp. P215-P215
Author(s):  
Josh D. Grill ◽  
David L. Sultzer ◽  
Jeffrey M. Burns ◽  
Karin Ernstrom ◽  
Rema Raman ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 190 (5) ◽  
pp. 918-933
Author(s):  
Mark E. Sobel ◽  
Jennifer C. Dreyfus ◽  
Kelsey Dillehay McKillip ◽  
Christi Kolarcik ◽  
William A. Muller ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 17-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Scott Roberts ◽  
David I. Shalowitz ◽  
Kurt D. Christensen ◽  
Jessica N. Everett ◽  
Scott Y. H. Kim ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Emily Christofides ◽  
Karla Stroud ◽  
Diana Elizabeth Tullis ◽  
Kieran C. O’Doherty

The practice of communicating research findings to participants has been identified as important in the research ethics literature, but little research has examined empirically how this occurs and what research participants’ views are in this regard. We interviewed 21 adults with cystic fibrosis who had previously participated in research and 2 research coordinators at a cystic fibrosis clinic. We aimed to better understand research participants’ views on receiving research results, types of findings they are interested in, how they would like to receive this information, and the impact this might have on future participation. Participants reported that they do not generally recall receiving study findings, though many reported that they would like to receive them. While some participants were not interested in receiving results, all participants felt that these results should be provided when desired by participants and believed that receiving study findings would support future participation. Participants felt that an accessible format, such as a lay summary, would be most helpful. This study supports calls to make study findings available to participants, though the format in which they are provided requires consideration. Participants rarely recalled receiving findings despite the clinic in which this study was conducted returning them regularly. Therefore, questions pertaining to the provision of study findings must focus less on whether to share the findings and more on how to share them with participants most effectively. The logistics of providing study findings may be challenging in some cases, but participant support for the practice highlights its importance.


2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Thorogood ◽  
Yann Joly ◽  
Bartha Maria Knoppers ◽  
Tommy Nilsson ◽  
Peter Metrakos ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document