When individuals are queried about whether or not they wish to receive individual research results about themselves that are discovered in the course of genomic research, the majority indicate that they prefer receiving all results, including those that are of limited validity and actionability. These preferences are in sharp contrast to the recommendations of experts who are wary of the potential for confusion and outright harm if questionable results are returned, and thus generally recommend returning only results of high validity and actionability. In this project, we will seek to resolve this tension by empirically exploring the extent to which participant preferences can reliably guide the return of individual research results, and can be incorporated into a governance structure around the return of results which minimizes harm. We are well positioned to gather data on this issue through the Children's Hospital Boston """"""""The Gene Partnership"""""""" (TGP), a novel pediatric research registry combining genetic banking, access to CHB electronic medical records, and scalable computer-based systems to ascertain preferences for return of results from the parents of research participants and, ultimately, to return those results. TGP is also unique among large-scale genomic studies, as participants have consented to receive their individual research results. Recognizing that oversight is essential in order to ethically return research results to participants, we have established a panel of medical and ethical experts (the Informed Cohort Oversight Board, or ICOB) to advise TGP on which results should and should not be returned. As we begin to return research results, we propose to build an evidence base to resolve the tension between participant preferences and expert opinion by determining if, and how, participant preferences can be incorporated into the ICOB's oversight of return of results. Participants in our study will be randomized to one of three methods to set their preferences (""""""""all"""""""" or """"""""no"""""""" results, using a checklist of types of results, or an interactive educational tool and then a checklist). We will provide participants with hypothetical research results to determine whether they fully understand the implications of their stated preferences for research results to receive, and if a novel interactive educational tool helps participants set preferences that more truly reflect their actual preferences. We will also use a combination of hypothetical results and focus groups to study participants'views on the ICOB's criteria for return of individual research results. For participants in whom there are actual individual results to return from whole exome sequencing we will determine the psychological and behavioral effects on TGP participants who receive actual individual research results, and if the method of setting preferences impacts on the effects. At the end of this study, genetic research repositories will better understand the importance of incorporating participant preferences into the governance around return of research results, and the best approaches to accomplish this.
It is important that participants in genomic research benefit from the studies that they are participating in, especially if research results pertain to their current or future health, by choosing what types of individual research results they want to receive (setting preferences). On the other hand, experts fear that participants do not truly understand the implications of their choice of individual research results to receive, suggesting that it is unrealistic to incorporate participant preferences in the return of individual research results. In this project, we will explore the extent to which participant preferences can truly be used to guide governance around return of individual research results.
|Amendola, Laura M; Jarvik, Gail P; Leo, Michael C et al. (2016) Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 98:1067-76|
|Lebo, Matthew S; Sutti, Sheila; Green, Robert C (2016) ""Big Data"" Gets Personal. Sci Transl Med 8:322fs3-3fs3|
|Waisbren, Susan E; Weipert, Caroline M; Walsh, Rebecca C et al. (2016) Psychosocial Factors Influencing Parental Interest in Genomic Sequencing of Newborns. Pediatrics 137 Suppl 1:S30-5|
|Conway-Pearson, Liam S; Christensen, Kurt D; Savage, Sarah K et al. (2016) Family health history reporting is sensitive to small changes in wording. Genet Med 18:1308-1311|
|Green, Robert C; Goddard, Katrina A B; Jarvik, Gail P et al. (2016) Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine. Am J Hum Genet 98:1051-66|
|Cacioppo, Cara N; Chandler, Ariel E; Towne, Meghan C et al. (2016) Expectation versus Reality: The Impact of Utility on Emotional Outcomes after Returning Individualized Genetic Research Results in Pediatric Rare Disease Research, a Qualitative Interview Study. PLoS One 11:e0153597|
|Brothers, Kyle B; Holm, Ingrid A; Childerhose, Janet E et al. (2016) When Participants in Genomic Research Grow Up: Contact and Consent at the Age of Majority. J Pediatr 168:226-31.e1|
|Holm, Ingrid A; Iles, Brittany R; Ziniel, Sonja I et al. (2015) Participant Satisfaction With a Preference-Setting Tool for the Return of Individual Research Results in Pediatric Genomic Research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 10:414-26|
|Waisbren, Susan E; BÃ¤ck, Danielle K; Liu, Christina et al. (2015) Parents are interested in newborn genomic testing during the early postpartum period. Genet Med 17:501-4|
|Krier, Joel B; Green, Robert C (2015) Management of Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomic Sequencing. Curr Protoc Hum Genet 87:9.23.1-16|
Showing the most recent 10 out of 26 publications