1
|
Broekstra R, Maeckelberghe ELM, Aris-Meijer JL, Stolk RP, Otten S. Motives of contributing personal data for health research: (non-)participation in a Dutch biobank. BMC Med Ethics 2020; 21:62. [PMID: 32711531 PMCID: PMC7382031 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-020-00504-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2019] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Large-scale, centralized data repositories are playing a critical and unprecedented role in fostering innovative health research, leading to new opportunities as well as dilemmas for the medical sciences. Uncovering the reasons as to why citizens do or do not contribute to such repositories, for example, to population-based biobanks, is therefore crucial. We investigated and compared the views of existing participants and non-participants on contributing to large-scale, centralized health research data repositories with those of ex-participants regarding the decision to end their participation. This comparison could yield new insights into motives of participation and non-participation, in particular the behavioural change of withdrawal. Methods We conducted 36 in-depth interviews with ex-participants, participants, and non-participants of a three-generation, population-based biobank in the Netherlands. The interviews focused on the respondents’ decision-making processes relating to their participation in a large-scale, centralized repository for health research data. Results The decision of participants and non-participants to contribute to the biobank was motivated by a desire to help others. Whereas participants perceived only benefits relating to their participation and were unconcerned about potential risks, non-participants and ex-participants raised concerns about the threat of large-scale, centralized public data repositories and public institutes, such as social exclusion or commercialization. Our analysis of ex-participants’ perceptions suggests that intrapersonal characteristics, such as levels of trust in society, participation conceived as a social norm, and basic societal values account for differences between participants and non-participants. Conclusions Our findings indicate the fluidity of motives centring on helping others in decisions to participate in large-scale, centralized health research data repositories. Efforts to improve participation should focus on enhancing the trustworthiness of such data repositories and developing layered strategies for communication with participants and with the public. Accordingly, personalized approaches for recruiting participants and transmitting information along with appropriate regulatory frameworks are required, which have important implications for current data management and informed consent procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Broekstra
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30.001, FA 40, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. .,Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - E L M Maeckelberghe
- University Medical Center Groningen, Institute for Medical Education, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - J L Aris-Meijer
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30.001, FA 40, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - R P Stolk
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30.001, FA 40, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - S Otten
- Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Health professionals’ practice for young people with, or at risk of, Li–Fraumeni syndrome: An Australasian survey. J Genet Couns 2019; 29:737-747. [DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2019] [Revised: 11/18/2019] [Accepted: 11/18/2019] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
|
3
|
Savard J, Hickerton C, Tytherleigh R, Terrill B, Turbitt E, Newson AJ, Wilson B, Gray K, Gaff C, Middleton A, Stackpoole E, Metcalfe SA. Australians' views and experience of personal genomic testing: survey findings from the Genioz study. Eur J Hum Genet 2019; 27:711-720. [PMID: 30666046 PMCID: PMC6461785 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0325-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2018] [Revised: 10/22/2018] [Accepted: 11/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Personal genomic tests (PGTs) for multiple purposes are marketed to ostensibly healthy people in Australia. These tests are generally marketed and purchased online commercially or can be ordered through a health professional. There has been minimal engagement with Australians about their interest in and experience with ordering a PGT. As part of a multistage, interdisciplinary project, an online survey (Stage 2 of the Genioz study) was available from May 2016 to May 2017. In total, 3253 respondents attempted the survey, with 2395 completed Australian responses from people with and without experience of having a PGT: 72% were female; 59% of the whole sample were undertaking/or had a university education; and, overall, age ranged from 18—over 80. A total of 571 respondents reported having had a genetic test, 373 of these classifiable as a PGT. A bivariate analysis suggests people who have undergone PGT in our sample were: women aged 25 and over; or in a high socioeconomic group, or have a personal or family diagnosis of a genetic condition (P ≤ 0.03). After a multivariate analysis, socioeconomic status and a genetic condition in the family were not of significance. The most common types of PGT reported were for carrier status and ancestry. Findings suggest greater awareness of, and an increasing demand for non-health related PGT in Australia. To support both consumers and health care professionals with understanding PGT results, there is a need for appropriate support and resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline Savard
- Deakin University, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.,The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.,Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chriselle Hickerton
- Genetics Education and Health Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Rigan Tytherleigh
- Genetics Education and Health Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.,Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Bronwyn Terrill
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia.,Genome.One, Sydney, Australia.,St. Vincent's Clinical School, University NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Erin Turbitt
- Genetics Education and Health Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.,Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.,National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.,Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia
| | - Brenda Wilson
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.,Memorial Hospital, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Kathleen Gray
- Health and Biomedical Informatics Centre, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.,The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Elaine Stackpoole
- Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.,Genetic Services of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
| | - Sylvia A Metcalfe
- Genetics Education and Health Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia. .,Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Middleton A, Niemiec E, Prainsack B, Bobe J, Farley L, Steed C, Smith J, Bevan P, Bonhomme N, Kleiderman E, Thorogood A, Schickhardt C, Garattini C, Vears D, Littler K, Banner N, Scott E, Kovalevskaya NV, Levin E, Morley KI, Howard HC. 'Your DNA, Your Say': global survey gathering attitudes toward genomics: design, delivery and methods. Per Med 2018; 15:311-318. [PMID: 29856292 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2018-0032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Our international study, 'Your DNA, Your Say', uses film and an online cross-sectional survey to gather public attitudes toward the donation, access and sharing of DNA information. We describe the methodological approach used to create an engaging and bespoke survey, suitable for translation into many different languages. We address some of the particular challenges in designing a survey on the subject of genomics. In order to understand the significance of a genomic result, researchers and clinicians alike use external databases containing DNA and medical information from thousands of people. We ask how publics would like their 'anonymous' data to be used (or not to be used) and whether they are concerned by the potential risks of reidentification; the results will be used to inform policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Middleton
- Society & Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.,Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Emilia Niemiec
- Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Barbara Prainsack
- Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Jason Bobe
- Department of Genetics & Genomic Sciences, Icahn Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, NY 10029, USA
| | - Lauren Farley
- Society & Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Claire Steed
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - James Smith
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Paul Bevan
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Natasha Bonhomme
- Expecting Health, Genetic Alliance, Washington, DC 20008-2369, USA
| | - Erika Kleiderman
- Centre of Genomics & Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Adrian Thorogood
- Centre of Genomics & Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Christoph Schickhardt
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Danya Vears
- Department of Public Health & Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics & Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | | | - Erick Scott
- Department of Genetics & Genomic Sciences, Icahn Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, NY 10029, USA
| | | | - Elissa Levin
- Policy & Clinical Affairs, Helix OpCo LLC, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | - Katherine I Morley
- Society & Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.,National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.,Centre for Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Global & Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Heidi C Howard
- Society & Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.,Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sundby A, Boolsen MW, Burgdorf KS, Ullum H, Hansen TF, Mors O. Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research. Hum Genomics 2018; 12:12. [PMID: 29506557 PMCID: PMC5839067 DOI: 10.1186/s40246-018-0144-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2017] [Accepted: 02/21/2018] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genomic sequencing of children in research raises complex ethical issues. This study aims to gain more knowledge on the attitudes towards the inclusion of children as research subjects in genomic research and towards the disclosure of pertinent and incidental findings to the parents and the child. METHODS Qualitative data were collected from interviews with a wide range of informants: experts engaged in genomic research, clinical geneticists, persons with mental disorders, relatives, and blood donors. Quantitative data were collected from a cross-sectional web-based survey among 1227 parents and 1406 non-parents who were potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research. RESULTS Participants generally expressed positive views on children's participation in genomic research. The informants in the qualitative interviews highlighted the age of the child as a critical aspect when disclosing genetic information. Other important aspects were the child's right to an autonomous choice, the emotional burden of knowing imposed on both the child and the parents, and the possibility of receiving beneficial clinical information regarding the future health of the child. Nevertheless, there was no consensus whether the parent or the child should receive the findings. A majority of survey stakeholders agreed that children should be able to participate in genomic research. The majority agreed that both pertinent and incidental findings should be returned to the parents and to the child when of legal age. Having children does not affect the stakeholder's attitudes towards the inclusion of children as research subjects in genomic research. CONCLUSION Our findings illustrate that both the child's right to autonomy and the parents' interest to be informed are important factors that are found valuable by the participants. In future guidelines governing children as subjects in genomic research, it would thus be essential to incorporate the child's right to an open future, including the right to receive information on adult-onset genetic disorders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Sundby
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Psychosis Research Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Skovagervej 2, 8240, Risskov, Denmark. .,The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research, iPSYCH, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | | | | | - Henrik Ullum
- Department of Clinical Immunology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Thomas Folkmann Hansen
- The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research, iPSYCH, Copenhagen, Denmark.,Institute for Biological Psychiatry, Mental Health Centre Sct. Hans, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.,Danish Headache Center, Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Ole Mors
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Psychosis Research Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Skovagervej 2, 8240, Risskov, Denmark.,The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research, iPSYCH, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sundby A, Boolsen MW, Burgdorf KS, Ullum H, Hansen TF, Middleton A, Mors O. Stakeholders in psychiatry and their attitudes toward receiving pertinent and incident findings in genomic research. Am J Med Genet A 2017; 173:2649-2658. [PMID: 28817238 PMCID: PMC5637903 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.38380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2016] [Revised: 05/01/2017] [Accepted: 07/08/2017] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Increasingly more psychiatric research studies use whole genome sequencing or whole exome sequencing. Consequently, researchers face difficult questions, such as which genomic findings to return to research participants and how. This study aims to gain more knowledge on the attitudes among potential research participants and health professionals toward receiving pertinent and incidental findings. A cross-sectional online survey was developed to investigate the attitudes among research participants toward receiving genomic findings. A total of 2,637 stakeholders responded: 241 persons with mental disorders, 671 relatives, 1,623 blood donors, 74 psychiatrists, and 28 clinical geneticists. Stakeholders wanted both pertinent findings (95%) and incidental findings (91%) to be made available for research participants. The majority (77%) stated that researchers should not actively search for incidental findings. Persons with mental disorders and relatives were generally more positive about receiving any kind of findings than clinical geneticists and psychiatrists. Compared with blood donors, persons with mental disorders reported to be more positive about receiving raw genomic data and information that is not of serious health importance. Psychiatrists and clinical geneticists were less positive about receiving genomic findings compared with blood donors. The attitudes toward receiving findings were very positive. Stakeholders were willing to refrain from receiving incidental information if it could compromise the research. Our results suggest that research participants consider themselves as altruistic participants. This study offers valuable insight, which may inform future programs aiming to develop new strategies to target issues relating to the return of findings in genomic research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Sundby
- Psychosis Research UnitAarhus University HospitalRisskovDenmark
- The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research (iPSYCH)AarhusDenmark
| | - Merete W. Boolsen
- Department of Political ScienceCopenhagen UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
| | | | - Henrik Ullum
- Department of Clinical ImmunologyCopenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
| | - Thomas F. Hansen
- The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research (iPSYCH)AarhusDenmark
- Institute for Biological Psychiatry, Mental Health Centre Sct. HansCopenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
| | - Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics ResearchConnecting ScienceWellcome Genome CampusCambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Ole Mors
- Psychosis Research UnitAarhus University HospitalRisskovDenmark
- The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research (iPSYCH)AarhusDenmark
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hurlimann T, Jaitovich Groisman I, Godard B. The elusive ideal of inclusiveness: lessons from a worldwide survey of neurologists on the ethical issues raised by whole-genome sequencing. BMC Med Ethics 2017; 18:28. [PMID: 28399922 PMCID: PMC5389086 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-017-0187-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2016] [Accepted: 04/04/2017] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
The anticipation of ethical issues that may arise with the clinical use of genomic technologies is crucial to envision their future implementation in a manner sensitive to local contexts. Yet, populations in low- and middle-income countries are underrepresented in studies that aim to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of such technologies. Within the framework of a research project entitled “Personalized medicine in the treatment of epilepsy”, we sought to increase inclusiveness by widening the reach of our survey, inviting neurologists from around the world to share their views and practices regarding the use of whole-genome sequencing in clinical neurology and its associated ethics. We discuss herein the compelling scientific and ethical reasons that led us to attempt to recruit neurologists worldwide, despite the lack, in many low- or middle-income countries, of access to genomic technologies. Recruitment procedures and their results are presented and discussed, as well as the barriers we faced. We conclude that inclusive recruitment remains a challenging, albeit necessary and legitimate, endeavour.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thierry Hurlimann
- Institut de recherche en santé publique (IRSPUM), Omics-Ethics Research Group, University of Montreal, PO Box 6128, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3 J7, Canada
| | - Iris Jaitovich Groisman
- Institut de recherche en santé publique (IRSPUM), Omics-Ethics Research Group, University of Montreal, PO Box 6128, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3 J7, Canada
| | - Béatrice Godard
- Institut de recherche en santé publique (IRSPUM), Omics-Ethics Research Group, University of Montreal, PO Box 6128, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3 J7, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
Genomic and medical data sharing is pivotal if the promise of genomic medicine is to be fully realised. Social scientists working in the genomics arena ask the public 'how is the technology working for you?' Empirical studies on attitudes, values and beliefs are incredibly valuable; they offer a voice from those who are, or will be, directly affected. This is paramount if personalised medicine is to be truly personal. An International attitude study, Your DNA, Your Say, uses film to provide background information and an online survey to gather public views on donating one's own personal DNA and medical data for use by others. In this paper the rationale to the project is introduced together with an overview of the survey and film design. The project has been translated into multiple languages and the results will be used in policy for the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Thornton L, Batterham PJ, Fassnacht DB, Kay-Lambkin F, Calear AL, Hunt S. Recruiting for health, medical or psychosocial research using Facebook: Systematic review. Internet Interv 2016; 4:72-81. [PMID: 30135792 PMCID: PMC6096238 DOI: 10.1016/j.invent.2016.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 197] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2015] [Revised: 01/12/2016] [Accepted: 02/04/2016] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Recruiting participants is a challenge for many health, medical and psychosocial research projects. One tool more frequently being used to improve recruitment is the social networking website Facebook. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that have used Facebook to recruit participants of all ages, to any psychosocial, health or medical research. 110 unique studies that used Facebook as a recruitment source were included in the review. The majority of studies used a cross-sectional design (80%) and addressed a physical health or disease issue (57%). Half (49%) of the included studies reported specific details of the Facebook recruitment process. Researchers paid between $1.36 and $110 per completing participants (Mean = $17.48, SD = $23.06). Among studies that examined the representativeness of their sample, the majority concluded (86%) their Facebook-recruited samples were similarly representative of samples recruited via traditional methods. These results indicate that Facebook is an effective and cost-efficient recruitment method. Researchers should consider their target group, advertisement wording, offering incentives and no-cost methods of recruitment when considering Facebook as a recruitment source. It is hoped this review will assist researchers to make decisions regarding the use of Facebook as a recruitment tool in future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Thornton
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Philip J. Batterham
- National Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | - Daniel B. Fassnacht
- Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | - Frances Kay-Lambkin
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
- Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
- Corresponding author at: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Alison L. Calear
- National Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | - Sally Hunt
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
- Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Middleton A, Wright CF, Morley KI, Bragin E, Firth HV, Hurles ME, Parker M. Potential research participants support the return of raw sequence data. J Med Genet 2015; 52:571-4. [PMID: 25995218 PMCID: PMC4518751 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2015] [Accepted: 05/01/2015] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Health-related results that are discovered in the process of genomic research should only be returned to research participants after being clinically validated and then delivered and followed up within a health service. Returning such results may be difficult for genomic researchers who are limited by resources or unable to access appropriate clinicians. Raw sequence data could, in theory, be returned instead. This might appear nonsensical as, on its own, it is a meaningless code with no clinical value. Yet, as and when direct to consumer genomics services become more widely available (and can be endorsed by independent health professionals and genomic researchers alike), the return of such data could become a realistic proposition. We explore attitudes from <7000 members of the public, genomic researchers, genetic health professionals and non-genetic health professionals and ask participants to suggest what they would do with a raw sequence, if offered it. Results show 62% participants were interested in using it to seek out their own clinical interpretation. Whilst we do not propose that raw sequence data should be returned at the moment, we suggest that should this become feasible in the future, participants of sequencing studies may possibly support this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Katherine I Morley
- Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytic Epidemiology, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Helen V Firth
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Michael Parker
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, The Ethox Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, Firth HV, Hurles ME, Wright CF, Parker M. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet 2015; 24:21-9. [PMID: 25920556 PMCID: PMC4795240 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.58] [Citation(s) in RCA: 138] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2015] [Revised: 02/04/2015] [Accepted: 02/19/2015] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Genome-wide sequencing in a research setting has the potential to reveal health-related information of personal or clinical utility for the study participant. There is increasing pressure to return research findings to participants that may not be related to the project aims, particularly when these could be used to prevent disease. Such secondary, unsolicited or 'incidental findings' (IFs) may be discovered unintentionally when interpreting sequence data, or as the result of a deliberate opportunistic screen. This cross-sectional, web-based survey investigated attitudes of 6944 individuals from 75 countries towards returning IFs from genome research. Participants included four relevant stakeholder groups: 4961 members of the public, 533 genetic health professionals, 843 non-genetic health professionals and 607 genomic researchers who were invited via traditional media, social media and professional e-mail list-serve. Treatability and perceived utility of incidental results were deemed important with 98% of stakeholders personally interested in learning about preventable life-threatening conditions. Although there was a generic interest in receiving genomic information, stakeholders did not expect researchers to opportunistically screen for IFs in a research setting. On many items, genetic health professionals had significantly more conservative views compared with other stakeholders. This finding demonstrates a disconnect between the views of those handling the findings of research and those participating in research. Exploring, evaluating and ultimately addressing this disconnect should form a priority for researchers and clinicians alike. This social sciences study offers the largest dataset, published to date, of attitudes towards issues surrounding the return of IFs from sequencing research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Middleton
- Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Human Genetics, Cambridge, UK
| | - Katherine I Morley
- Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.,Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytic Epidemiology, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Eugene Bragin
- Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Human Genetics, Cambridge, UK
| | - Helen V Firth
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | - Michael Parker
- The Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, Firth HV, Hurles ME, Wright CF, Parker M. No expectation to share incidental findings in genomic research. Lancet 2015; 385:1289-90. [PMID: 25529584 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62119-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Middleton
- Human Genetics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK.
| | - Katherine I Morley
- Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK; Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytic Epidemiology, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Eugene Bragin
- Human Genetics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Helen V Firth
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - Matthew E Hurles
- Human Genetics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Caroline F Wright
- Human Genetics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Michael Parker
- The Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Finding people who will tell you their thoughts on genomics-recruitment strategies for social sciences research. J Community Genet 2014; 5:291-302. [PMID: 24535681 PMCID: PMC4159472 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-014-0184-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2013] [Accepted: 01/22/2014] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper offers a description of how social media, traditional media and direct invitation were used as tools for the recruitment of 6,944 research participants for a social sciences study on genomics. The remit was to gather the views of various stakeholders towards sharing incidental findings from whole genome studies. This involved recruiting members of the public, genetic health professionals, genomic researchers and non-genetic health professionals. A novel survey was designed that contained ten integrated films; this was made available online and open for completion by anyone worldwide. The recruitment methods are described together with the convenience and snowballing sampling framework. The most successful strategy involved the utilisation of social media; Facebook, Blogging, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google Ads led to the ascertainment of over 75 % of the final sample. We conclude that the strategies used were successful in recruiting in eclectic mix of appropriate participants. Design of the survey and results from the study are presented separately.
Collapse
|