Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

21 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

To disclose, or not to disclose? Perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical genomic professionals are increasingly facing decisions about returning incidental findings (IFs) from genetic research. Although previous studies have shown that research participants are interested in receiving IFs, yet there has been an argument about the extent of researcher obligation to return IFs. We aimed in this study to explore the perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research.

Methods

We conducted a national survey of a sample (n = 113) of clinical genomic professionals using a convenient sampling. A self-administered questionnaire was used to explore their attitudes toward disclosure of IFs, their perception of the duties to return IFs and identifying the barriers for disclosure of IFs. A descriptive analysis was employed to describe participants' responses.

Results

Sixty-five (57.5%) respondents had faced IFs in their practice and 31 (27.4%) were not comfortable in discussing IFs with their research subjects. Less than one-third of the respondents reported the availability of guidelines governing IFs. The majority 84 (80%) and 69 (62.7%) of the study participants indicated they would return the IFs if the risk of disease threat ≥ 50% and 6-49%, respectively and 36 (31.9%) reported they have no obligation to return IFs.

Conclusion

Clinical genomics professionals have positive attitudes and perceptions toward the returning IFs from genomic research, yet some revealed no duty to do so. Detailed guidelines must be established to provide insights into how genomics professionals should be handled IFs.

SUBMITTER: AlFayyad I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8314473 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing.

Project description:The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended that clinical laboratories performing next-generation sequencing analyze and return pathogenic variants for 56 specific genes it considered medically actionable. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of returning these results.We developed a decision-analytic policy model to project the quality-adjusted life-years and lifetime costs associated with returning ACMG-recommended incidental findings in three hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 patients.Returning incidental findings to cardiomyopathy patients, colorectal cancer patients, or healthy individuals would increase costs by $896,000, $2.9 million, and $3.9 million, respectively, and would increase quality-adjusted life-years by 20, 25.4, and 67 years, respectively, for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $44,800, $115,020, and $58,600, respectively. In probabilistic analyses, returning incidental findings cost less than $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 85, 28, and 91%, respectively, of simulations. Assuming next-generation sequencing costs $500, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for primary screening of healthy individuals was $133,400 (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 10% of simulations). Results were sensitive to the cohort age and assumptions about gene penetrance.Returning incidental findings is likely cost-effective for certain patient populations. Screening of generally healthy individuals is likely not cost-effective based on current data, unless next-generation sequencing costs less than $500.

| S-EPMC4430464 | biostudies-literature

Perspectives and experiences of researchers regarding feedback of incidental genomic research findings: A qualitative study.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a plethora of unanswered ethical questions about sharing incidental findings in genetics and genomics research. Yet understanding and addressing such issues is necessary for communicating incidental findings with participants. We explored researchers' perspectives and experiences regarding feedback of incidental genomics findings to participants.MethodsThis was a qualitative study using semi-structured interview schedules for In-depth interviews. Thirty respondents were purposively selected based on role as genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda. Data were analysed through content analysis to identify emerging themes using a comprehensive thematic matrix. QSR International NVivo software was used to support data analysis.Resultsa). On perceptions, sharing of incidental findings was acceptable and four themes emerged including role of professional judgement; role of ethics committees and ethical guidelines; optimal disclosure practices; limits to professional duty and uncertainty and; b). on practices, sharing had been carried out by some researchers and a theme on experience and practices emerged.ConclusionFeedback of incidental genomics research findings to participants is generally acceptable to researchers. Some researchers. Challenges include lack of ethical guidelines and uncertainty about the findings.

| S-EPMC9423610 | biostudies-literature

Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research.

Project description: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.

| S-EPMC4795240 | biostudies-literature

Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants.

Project description:IntroductionMany research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants' (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP.MethodsA semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants.ResultsThree content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance.ConclusionSupport to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.

| S-EPMC8592386 | biostudies-literature

"Not pathogenic until proven otherwise": perspectives of UK clinical genomics professionals toward secondary findings in context of a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team and the 100,000 Genomes Project.

Project description:PurposeApproaches to secondary findings in genome sequencing (GS) are unresolved. In the United Kingdom, GS is now routinely available through the 100,000 Genomes Project, which offers participants feedback of limited secondary findings.MethodsIn Oxford, a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team (GM-MDT) governs local access to GS, and reviews findings. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 19 GM-MDT members to explore perspectives on secondary findings.ResultsWhile enthusiastic about GS for diagnosing rare disease, members question the rationale for genome screening largely because of lack of evidence for clinical utility and limited justification for use of resources. Members' views are drawn from diverse experiences; they feel a strong sense of responsibility to act in participants' best interests. The capacity to return limited secondary findings should be enabled, but members favor a cautious approach that is responsive to accumulating evidence. Informed participant choice is considered critical, yet challenging. Discrimination of variants is considered essential, and requiring of specialist input and consensus. Multiple areas requiring enhanced engagement and education are identified, i.e., for patients, the public, and health-care professionals; at present, mainstreaming of genomics may be premature.ConclusionUK experts believe that evidence to inform policy toward secondary findings is lacking, arguing for caution.

| S-EPMC5880578 | biostudies-literature

Attitudes of Canadian researchers toward the return to participants of incidental and targeted genomic findings obtained in a pediatric research setting.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes of genomics researchers in a pediatric setting in the context of regulatory guidance recommending the disclosure of clinically significant research findings.MethodsA validated 32-item questionnaire was sent to 107 researchers with two large-scale projects (the Canadian Pediatric Cancer Genome Consortium and the Finding of Rare Genes Canada Consortium). We examined researchers' attitudes toward obligations to offer genomic research results (including if the participant was deceased, a relative, or a child), influence of the certainty/severity of the condition on this obligation, and personal experiences.ResultsOf the 107 researchers, 74 (69%) responded. Researchers did not feel a strong responsibility to look for meaningful incidental results in the research genomic data set (n = 27, 37%). However, once identified, they felt participants had a strong right to receive them, irrespective of being incidental (n = 50, 68%) or primary targets (n = 64, 87%). There was a high degree of support for informing siblings of genomic results (n = 46, 62%), especially for treatable conditions (n = 56, 76%). Less than half of the participants indicated that their research ethics board required an offer of results (n = 34, 46%) or provided a detailed process (n = 16, 22%).ConclusionResearchers strongly support the offer of targeted and incidental genomic research results to participants. Greater regulatory guidance is needed for a consistent approach.

| S-EPMC3910293 | biostudies-literature

Processes and factors involved in decisions regarding return of incidental genomic findings in research.

Project description:PurposeStudies have begun exploring whether researchers should return incidental findings in genomic studies, and if so, which findings should be returned; however, how researchers make these decisions-the processes and factors involved-has remained largely unexplored.MethodsWe interviewed 28 genomics researchers in-depth about their experiences and views concerning the return of incidental findings.ResultsResearchers often struggle with questions concerning which incidental findings to return and how to make those decisions. Multiple factors shape their views, including information about the gene variant (e.g., pathogenicity and disease characteristics), concerns about participants' well-being and researcher responsibility, and input from external entities. Researchers weigh the evidence, yet they face conflicting pressures, with relevant data frequently being unavailable. Researchers vary in who they believe should decide: participants, principal investigators, institutional review boards, and/or professional organizations. Contextual factors can influence these decisions, including policies governing return of results by institutions and biobanks and the study design. Researchers vary in desires for: guidance from institutions and professional organizations, changes to current institutional processes, and community-wide genetics education.ConclusionThese data, the first to examine the processes by which researchers make decisions regarding the return of genetic incidental findings, highlight several complexities involved and have important implications for future genetics research, policy, and examinations of these issues.

| S-EPMC3966970 | biostudies-literature

A practical approach to incidental findings in neuroimaging research.

Project description:ObjectiveWe describe the systematic approach to incidental findings (IFs) used at the Mind Research Network (MRN) where all MRI scans receive neuroradiologist interpretation and participants are provided results.MethodsFrom 2004 to 2011, 8,545 MRI scans were acquired by 45 researchers. As mandated by MRN's external institutional review board, all structural sequences were evaluated by a clinical neuroradiologist who generated a report that included recommendations for referral if indicated. Investigators received a copy of their participants' reports, which were also mailed to participants unless they specifically declined. To better understand the impact of the radiology review process, a financial analysis was completed in addition to a follow-up phone survey to characterize participant perceptions regarding receiving their MRI scan results.ResultsThe radiologist identified IFs in 34% of the 4,447 participants. Of those with IFs (n = 1,518), the radiologist recommended urgent or immediate referral for 2.5% and routine referral for 17%. For 80.5%, no referral was recommended. Estimated annual cost for this approach including support for the neuroradiologist, medical director, and ancillary staff is approximately $60,000 or $24/scan. The results of the retrospective phone survey showed that 92% of participants appreciated receiving their MRI report, and the majority stated it increased their likelihood of volunteering for future studies.ConclusionsAddressing IFs in a cost-effective and consistent manner is possible by adopting a policy that provides neuroradiology interpretation and offers participant assistance with clinical follow-up when necessary. Our experience suggests that an ethical, institution-wide approach to IFs can be implemented with minimal investigator burden.

| S-EPMC3235350 | biostudies-literature

Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants.

Project description:PurposeLarge-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.MethodsWe interviewed an international sample (n = 39) of psychiatric genetics researchers to examine conceptualizations of "best practices" for RoR to individual research participants.ResultsWhile 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.ConclusionThere 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.

| S-EPMC7000323 | biostudies-literature

Availability of treatment drives decisions of genetic health professionals about disclosure of incidental findings.

Project description:Contrasting opinions exist regarding the disclosure of incidental findings detected through clinical genomic testing. This study used a discrete choice experiment to investigate genetic health professionals' preferences for the disclosure of incidental findings in an Australian paediatric setting. Four attributes of conditions relating to incidental findings were investigated: availability of prevention and treatment, chance of symptoms ever developing, age of onset and severity. Questionnaires from 59 Australian genetic health professionals were analysed. Results show that when evaluating incidental findings for disclosure, these professionals value the availability of prevention and treatment for the condition above all other characteristics included in the study. The framework of this discrete choice experiment can be used to investigate the preferences of other stakeholders such as paediatricians and parents about disclosure of incidental findings. The results of this study may be considered when assessing which categories of incidental findings are most suitable for disclosure in clinical practice.

| S-EPMC4169537 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data