1
|
Sánchez MC, Hernández Clemente JC, García López FJ. Public and Patients' Perspectives Towards Data and Sample Sharing for Research: An Overview of Empirical Findings. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2023; 18:319-345. [PMID: 37936410 DOI: 10.1177/15562646231212644] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2023]
Abstract
We aimed to review the attitudes and perspectives of the public and patients towards the sharing of data and biospecimens for research and to identify common dimensions, regardless of setting. Our review included systematic, scoping or thematic reviews of empirical studies retrieved from Medline (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Reviews. The main themes identified and synthesised across the 14 reviews were readiness and motivations; potential risks and safeguards; trust, transparency and accountability; autonomy and preferred type of consent; and factors influencing data and biospecimen sharing and consent. Sociodemographic factors and research and individual context remain relevant influencing factors in all settings, while preferences for types of consent are highly heterogeneous. Trusted environments and adapted consent options with participant engagement are relevant to improve research participation.
Collapse
|
2
|
Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0258646. [PMID: 34748551 PMCID: PMC8575249 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258646] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 10/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
3
|
Martinez-Martin N, Greely HT, Cho MK. Ethical Development of Digital Phenotyping Tools for Mental Health Applications: Delphi Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021; 9:e27343. [PMID: 34319252 PMCID: PMC8367187 DOI: 10.2196/27343] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Revised: 05/06/2021] [Accepted: 05/21/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Digital phenotyping (also known as personal sensing, intelligent sensing, or body computing) involves the collection of biometric and personal data in situ from digital devices, such as smartphones, wearables, or social media, to measure behavior or other health indicators. The collected data are analyzed to generate moment-by-moment quantification of a person's mental state and potentially predict future mental states. Digital phenotyping projects incorporate data from multiple sources, such as electronic health records, biometric scans, or genetic testing. As digital phenotyping tools can be used to study and predict behavior, they are of increasing interest for a range of consumer, government, and health care applications. In clinical care, digital phenotyping is expected to improve mental health diagnoses and treatment. At the same time, mental health applications of digital phenotyping present significant areas of ethical concern, particularly in terms of privacy and data protection, consent, bias, and accountability. OBJECTIVE This study aims to develop consensus statements regarding key areas of ethical guidance for mental health applications of digital phenotyping in the United States. METHODS We used a modified Delphi technique to identify the emerging ethical challenges posed by digital phenotyping for mental health applications and to formulate guidance for addressing these challenges. Experts in digital phenotyping, data science, mental health, law, and ethics participated as panelists in the study. The panel arrived at consensus recommendations through an iterative process involving interviews and surveys. The panelists focused primarily on clinical applications for digital phenotyping for mental health but also included recommendations regarding transparency and data protection to address potential areas of misuse of digital phenotyping data outside of the health care domain. RESULTS The findings of this study showed strong agreement related to these ethical issues in the development of mental health applications of digital phenotyping: privacy, transparency, consent, accountability, and fairness. Consensus regarding the recommendation statements was strongest when the guidance was stated broadly enough to accommodate a range of potential applications. The privacy and data protection issues that the Delphi participants found particularly critical to address related to the perceived inadequacies of current regulations and frameworks for protecting sensitive personal information and the potential for sale and analysis of personal data outside of health systems. CONCLUSIONS The Delphi study found agreement on a number of ethical issues to prioritize in the development of digital phenotyping for mental health applications. The Delphi consensus statements identified general recommendations and principles regarding the ethical application of digital phenotyping to mental health. As digital phenotyping for mental health is implemented in clinical care, there remains a need for empirical research and consultation with relevant stakeholders to further understand and address relevant ethical issues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Martinez-Martin
- Center for Biomedical Ethics, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
| | | | - Mildred K Cho
- Center for Biomedical Ethics, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vears DF, Minion JT, Roberts SJ, Cummings J, Machirori M, Murtagh MJ. Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review. Per Med 2021; 18:295-310. [PMID: 33822658 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2020-0139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danya F Vears
- Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Carlton 3052, Australia.,Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville 3052, Australia.,Center for Biomedical Ethics & Law, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven 3000, Belgium.,Leuven Institute for Human Genetics & Society, Leuven 3000, Belgium
| | - Joel T Minion
- Policy, Ethics & Life Sciences (PEALS) Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK
| | - Stephanie J Roberts
- Policy, Ethics & Life Sciences (PEALS) Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK
| | - James Cummings
- School of Art, Media & American Studies, University of East Anglia, NR4 7TJ, UK
| | - Mavis Machirori
- School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK
| | - Madeleine J Murtagh
- Policy, Ethics & Life Sciences (PEALS) Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK.,School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mezinska S, Gallagher L, Verbrugge M, Bunnik EM. Ethical issues in genomics research on neurodevelopmental disorders: a critical interpretive review. Hum Genomics 2021; 15:16. [PMID: 33712057 PMCID: PMC7953558 DOI: 10.1186/s40246-021-00317-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2020] [Accepted: 03/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Genomic research on neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), particularly involving minors, combines and amplifies existing research ethics issues for biomedical research. We performed a review of the literature on the ethical issues associated with genomic research involving children affected by NDDs as an aid to researchers to better anticipate and address ethical concerns. Results Qualitative thematic analysis of the included articles revealed themes in three main areas: research design and ethics review, inclusion of research participants, and communication of research results. Ethical issues known to be associated with genomic research in general, such as privacy risks and informed consent/assent, seem especially pressing for NDD participants because of their potentially decreased cognitive abilities, increased vulnerability, and stigma associated with mental health problems. Additionally, there are informational risks: learning genetic information about NDD may have psychological and social impact, not only for the research participant but also for family members. However, there are potential benefits associated with research participation, too: by enrolling in research, the participants may access genetic testing and thus increase their chances of receiving a (genetic) diagnosis for their neurodevelopmental symptoms, prognostic or predictive information about disease progression or the risk of concurrent future disorders. Based on the results of our review, we developed an ethics checklist for genomic research involving children affected by NDDs. Conclusions In setting up and designing genomic research efforts in NDD, researchers should partner with communities of persons with NDDs. Particular attention should be paid to preventing disproportional burdens of research participation of children with NDDs and their siblings, parents and other family members. Researchers should carefully tailor the information and informed consent procedures to avoid therapeutic and diagnostic misconception in NDD research. To better anticipate and address ethical issues in specific NDD studies, we suggest researchers to use the ethics checklist for genomic research involving children affected by NDDs presented in this paper. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40246-021-00317-4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Mezinska
- Faculty of Medicine and Institute of Clinical and Preventive Medicine, University of Latvia, Jelgavas Str.3, Riga, LV-1004, Latvia.
| | - L Gallagher
- Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.,Trinity Translational Medicine Institute, St. James Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland
| | - M Verbrugge
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2400, Rotterdam, 3000, CA, The Netherlands
| | - E M Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2400, Rotterdam, 3000, CA, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Lázaro-Muñoz G, Torgerson L, Pereira S. Return of results in a global survey of psychiatric genetics researchers: practices, attitudes, and knowledge. Genet Med 2021; 23:298-305. [PMID: 33033403 PMCID: PMC8374879 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-020-00986-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2020] [Revised: 09/17/2020] [Accepted: 09/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Patient-participants in psychiatric genetics research may be at an increased risk for negative psychosocial impacts related to the return of genetic research results. Examining psychiatric genetics researchers' return of results practices and perspectives can aid the development of empirically informed and ethically sound guidelines. METHODS A survey of 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries was conducted to examine current return of results practices, attitudes, and knowledge. RESULTS Most respondents (61%) reported that their studies generated medically relevant genomic findings. Although 24% have returned results to individual participants, 52% of those involved in decisions about return of results plan to return or continue to return results. Respondents supported offering "medically actionable" results related to psychiatric disorders (82%), and the majority agreed non-medically actionable risks for Huntington (71%) and Alzheimer disease (64%) should be offered. About half (49%) of respondents supported offering reliable polygenic risk scores for psychiatric conditions. Despite plans to return, only 14% of researchers agreed there are adequate guidelines for returning results, and 59% rated their knowledge about how to manage the process for returning results as poor. CONCLUSION Psychiatric genetics researchers support returning a wide range of results to patient-participants, but they lack adequate knowledge and guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Laura Torgerson
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stacey Pereira
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kostick K, Brannan C, Pereira S, Lázaro-Muñoz G. Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2019; 180:589-600. [PMID: 30358063 PMCID: PMC6483893 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32682] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2018] [Revised: 07/31/2018] [Accepted: 09/07/2018] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
In the middle of growing consensus that genomics researchers should offer to return clinically valid, medically relevant, and medically actionable findings identified in the course of research, psychiatric genetics researchers face new challenges. As they uncover the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders through genome-wide association studies and integrate whole genome and whole exome sequencing to their research, there is a pressing need for examining these researchers' views regarding the return of results (RoR) and the unique challenges for offering RoR from psychiatric genetics research. Based on qualitative interviews with 39 psychiatric genetics researchers from different countries operating at the forefront of their field, we provide an insider's view of researchers' practices regarding RoR and the most contentious issues in psychiatry researchers' decision-making around RoR, including what are the strongest ethical, scientific, and practical arguments for and against offering RoR from this research. Notably, findings suggest that psychiatric genetics researchers (85%) overwhelmingly favor offering RoR of at least some findings, but only 22% of researchers are returning results. Researchers identified a number of scientific and practical concerns about RoR, and about how to return results in a responsible way to patients diagnosed with a severe psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, findings help highlight areas for further discussion and resolution of conflicts in the practice of RoR in psychiatric genetics research. As the pace of discovery in psychiatric genetics continues to surge, resolution of these uncertainties gains greater urgency to avoid ethical pitfalls and to maximize the positive impact of RoR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin Kostick
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cody Brannan
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stacey Pereira
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Strohmaier J, Witt SH, Frank J, Lemme N, Flatau L, Streit F, Foo JC, Reitt M, Rujescu D, Schulze TG, Lanzerath D, Illes F, Degenhardt F, Rietschel M. Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2019; 180:555-565. [PMID: 30912305 PMCID: PMC6899643 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32724] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2018] [Revised: 02/01/2019] [Accepted: 03/04/2019] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
Recent breakthroughs in psychiatric genetics have identified genetic risk factors of yet unknown clinical value. A main ethical principal in the context of psychiatric research as well as future clinical genetic testing is the respect for a person's autonomy to decide whether to undergo genetic testing, and whom to grant access to genetic data. However, experience within the psychiatric genetic research setting has indicated controversies surrounding attitudes toward this ethical principal. This study aimed to explore attitudes concerning the right of individuals to self-determine testing and disclosure of results, and to determine whether these attitudes are context-dependent, that is, not directly related to the test result but rather to specific circumstances. N = 160 individuals with major depression or bipolar disorder and n = 29 relatives of individuals with either illness completed an online-questionnaire assessing attitudes toward genetic testing, genetic research, disclosure of results, incidental findings, and access to psychiatric genetic test results. Generally, the right of the person's autonomy was considered very important, but attitudes varied. For example, half of those who considered that children should have the right to refuse psychiatric genetic testing even against their parents' will, also state that they should be tested upon their parents' wishes. Also, the majority of respondents considered the physician entitled to disregard their stated wishes concerning the disclosure of incidental findings in case of good treatment options. Thus, researchers and clinicians must be aware that attitudes toward psychiatric genetic testing are often mutable and should discuss these prior to testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jana Strohmaier
- Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany
| | - Stephanie H. Witt
- Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany
| | - Josef Frank
- Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany
| | - Noemi Lemme
- Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany
| | - Laura Flatau
- Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and GenomicsLudwig‐Maximilians‐UniversityMunichGermany
| | - Fabian Streit
- Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany
| | - Jerome C. Foo
- Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany
| | - Markus Reitt
- Section of Psychiatric Genetics, Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapyUniversity Medical Center, Georg‐August‐UniversityGöttingenGermany
| | - Dan Rujescu
- Department of PsychiatryPsychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Martin‐Luther‐University Halle‐WittenbergHalleGermany,Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Munich (LMU)MunichGermany
| | - Thomas G. Schulze
- Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and GenomicsLudwig‐Maximilians‐UniversityMunichGermany,Section of Psychiatric Genetics, Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapyUniversity Medical Center, Georg‐August‐UniversityGöttingenGermany
| | - Dirk Lanzerath
- German Reference Centre for Ethics in the Life Sciences (DRZE)BonnGermany
| | - Franciska Illes
- Department of PsychiatryRuhr University Bochum, LWL‐University HospitalBochumGermany
| | - Franziska Degenhardt
- Institute of Human GeneticsUniversity of BonnBonnGermany,Department of GenomicsLife & Brain Center, University of BonnBonnGermany
| | - Marcella Rietschel
- Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Macpherson I, Roqué MV, Segarra I. Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement. Front Genet 2019; 10:767. [PMID: 31552088 PMCID: PMC6733984 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00767] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2018] [Accepted: 07/19/2019] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
The new reproductive technologies have opened the door to different processes of germline genetic enhancement by which the characteristics of an individual according to the interests of the agents involved could be selected during its gestation. Although the initiative is apparently oriented towards developing individuals that would excel in society, critical voices raise the concerns about that this approach would generate and need for a reflection on the ethical, social and legal implications of these techniques and their implementation in society. We reviewed the literature about these issues throughout their historical records to date, focusing on the moral arguments and non-clinical aspects that affect the legal and social environment. We have observed various trends of thought with divergent positions (proactive, preventive, and regulatory) as well as a large number of articles that try to reconcile the different approaches. This review illustrates a series of concepts from the ethics and philosophy fields which are frequently used in studies that evaluate the ethical implications of germline genetic enhancement, such as dignity, benefit, autonomy, and identity. In addition, amongst the many unresolved controversies surrounding genetic enhancement, we identify procreative beneficence, genetic disassociation, gender selection, the value of disability, embryo chimerization, and the psychosocial inequality of potentially enhanced individuals as crucial. We also develop possible scenarios for future debate. We consider especially important the definition and specification of three aspects which are essential for the deployment of new reproductive technologies: the moral status of the embryo undergoing enhancement, the legal status of the enhanced individual, and the responsibility of the agents executing the enhancement. Finally, we propose the precautionary principle as a means to navigate ethical uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ignacio Macpherson
- Department of Humanities, International University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
- Pharmacokinetics, Patient Care and Translational Bioethics Research Group, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain
| | - María Victoria Roqué
- Department of Humanities, International University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
- Pharmacokinetics, Patient Care and Translational Bioethics Research Group, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain
| | - Ignacio Segarra
- Pharmacokinetics, Patient Care and Translational Bioethics Research Group, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain
- Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kostick K, Pereira S, Brannan C, Torgerson L, Lázaro-Muñoz G. Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants. Genet Med 2019; 22:345-352. [PMID: 31477844 PMCID: PMC7000323 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0642-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2019] [Accepted: 08/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Large-scale array-based and sequencing studies have advanced our understanding of the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders, but also increased the potential to generate an exponentially larger amount of clinically relevant findings. As genomic testing becomes more widespread in psychiatry research, urgency grows to establish best practices for offering return of results (RoR) to individuals at risk or diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. Methods We interviewed an international sample (n = 39) of psychiatric genetics researchers to examine conceptualizations of “best practices” for RoR to individual research participants. Results While the vast majority of researchers do not offer RoR, most believed medically actionable findings (85%) and clinically valid but non–medically actionable findings (54%) should be offered. Researchers identified three main areas for improvement: interfacing with individual participants; interdisciplinary training, guidance, and integration; and quality planning and resource allocation for returning results. Conclusion There are significant gaps between researchers’ visions for “best” versus “actual” RoR practices. While researchers call for participant-centered practices, including consent practices that consider any special needs of participants with psychiatric disorders, return of individually meaningful results, and effective follow-up and provisions for treatment, the current reality is that consent and RoR practices lack standardized and evidence-based norms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin Kostick
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stacey Pereira
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cody Brannan
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Laura Torgerson
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Garrett JR, Lantos JD, Biesecker LG, Childerhose JE, Chung WK, Holm IA, Koenig BA, McEwen JE, Wilfond BS, Brothers K. Rethinking the "open future" argument against predictive genetic testing of children. Genet Med 2019; 21:2190-2198. [PMID: 30894702 PMCID: PMC6754817 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0483-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2018] [Accepted: 02/27/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Professional consensus has traditionally discouraged predictive genetic
testing when no childhood interventions can reduce future morbidity or
mortality. However, advances in genome sequencing and accumulating evidence that
children and families cope adequately with predictive genetic information have
weakened this consensus. The primary argument remaining against testing appeals
to children’s “right to an open future.” It claims that the
autonomy of the future adult is violated when others make an irreversible choice
to obtain or disclose predictive genetic information during childhood. We
evaluate this argument and conclude that children’s interest in an open
future should not be understood as a right. Rather an open
future is one significant interest to weigh against other important interests
when evaluating decisions. Thus, predictive genetic testing is ethically
permissible in principle, as long as the interests promoted outweigh potential
harms. We conclude by offering an expanded model of children’s interests
that might be considered in such circumstances, and present two case analyses to
illustrate how this framework better guides decisions about predictive genetic
testing in pediatrics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy R Garrett
- Children's Mercy Bioethics Center, Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA. .,Department of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA.
| | - John D Lantos
- Children's Mercy Bioethics Center, Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA
| | - Leslie G Biesecker
- National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Janet E Childerhose
- Division of Pediatric Clinical and Translational Research, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA
| | - Wendy K Chung
- Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ingrid A Holm
- Division of Genetics and Genomics and the Manton Center for Orphan Diseases Research, and Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Barbara A Koenig
- UCSF Bioethics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Jean E McEwen
- National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Benjamin S Wilfond
- Treuman Katz Bioethics Center, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Kyle Brothers
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Sundby A, Boolsen MW, Burgdorf KS, Ullum H, Hansen TF, Middleton A, Mors O. The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery. Eur Psychiatry 2018; 55:29-35. [PMID: 30384109 DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2018] [Revised: 09/18/2018] [Accepted: 09/18/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Sundby
- Psychosis Research Unit, Aarhus University, Risskov, Denmark; The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research, iPSYCH, Denmark.
| | | | | | - Henrik Ullum
- Department of Clinical Immunology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshopitalet, Denmark
| | - Thomas Folkmann Hansen
- The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research, iPSYCH, Denmark; Institute for Biological Psychiatry, Mental Health Centre Sct. Hans, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Danish Headache Center, Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, Denmark
| | - Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Ole Mors
- Psychosis Research Unit, Aarhus University, Risskov, Denmark; The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research, iPSYCH, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|