Participant mothers' attitudes toward genetic analysis in a birth cohort study

Parent attitudes towards data sharing in developmental science

Background

Data sharing in developmental science is increasingly encouraged, supported by funder and publisher mandates for open data access. Data sharing can accelerate discovery, link researchers with high quality analytic expertise to researchers with large datasets and democratise the research landscape to enable researchers with limited funding to access large sample sizes. However, there are also significant privacy and security concerns, in addition to conceptual and ethical considerations. These are particularly acute for developmental science, where child participants cannot consent themselves. As we move forward into a new era of data openness, it is essential that we adequately represent the views of stakeholder communities in designing data sharing efforts.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive survey of the opinions of 195 parents on data sharing in developmental science. Survey themes included how widely parents are willing to share their child's data, which type of organisations they would share the data with and the type of consent they would be comfortable providing.

Results

Results showed that parents were generally supportive of curated, but not open, data sharing. In addition to individual privacy and security concerns, more altruistic considerations around the purpose of research were important. Parents overwhelmingly supported nuanced consenting models in which preferences for particular types of data sharing could be changed over time. This model is different to that implemented in the vast majority of developmental science research and is contrary to many funder or publisher mandates.

Conclusions

The field should look to create shared repositories that implement features such as dynamic consent and mechanisms for curated sharing that allow consideration of the scientific questions addressed. Better communication and outreach are required to build trust in data sharing, and advanced analytic methods will be required to understand the impact of selective sharing on reproducibility and representativeness of research datasets.

The good, the bad, and the utilitarian: attitudes towards genetic testing and implications for disability

The present study focused on the link between the attitudes towards genetic testing and views on selective reproduction choices following genetic testing. First, we explored the potential demographical (age, gender, number of children, relationship status) and personal factors (perceived morality, religiosity, parenting intentions, instrumental harm) underlying these attitudes using a specific moral psychology approach, i.e., the two-dimension model of utilitarianism (i.e., instrumental harm and impartial beneficence). Next, we investigated participants' hypothetical reproduction choices depending on the future child's potential future condition, assessed through genetic screening. Our sample consisted of 1627 Romanian adults aged 17 to 70 (M = 24.46). Results indicated that one's perceived morality was the strongest predictor of positive attitudes towards genetic testing, and instrumental harm was the strongest predictor of negative attitudes. Also, more religious individuals with more children had more moral concerns related to genetic testing. Participants considered Down syndrome as the condition that parents (others than themselves) should most take into account when deciding to have children (35%), followed by progressive muscular dystrophy (29.1%) and major depressive disorder (29%). When expressing their choices for their future children (i.e., pregnancy termination decisions), participants' knowledge about potential deafness in their children generated the most frequent (37.7%) definitive termination decisions (i.e., "definitely yes" answers), followed by schizophrenia (35.8%), and major depressive disorder (35.2%). Finally, we discuss our results concerning their practical implications for disability and prenatal screening ethical controversies.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

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.