Original articleBiobank Participants' Preferences for Disclosure of Genetic Research Results: Perspectives From the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity Project
Section snippets
Study Group
Participants were selected from BWH's OurGenes biobank, which consists of patients recruited in the context of clinical care appointments since 2010. Participants consent to storage of blood, linkage of the sample with their BWH electronic medical record, and storage of a health information questionnaire that collects additional information about participants' health behaviors, lifestyle, and family history. Most participants (93%) also provide consent to be recontacted by the biobank for
Description of the Study Population
We contacted 1154 biobank participants by e-mail or mail. The total number of respondents was 555 (224 responded via e-mail and 332 responded via mail), and the total response rate was 48.1%. No statistically significant differences were observed between the response rates of men and women: 186 of the 404 (46%) and 369 of the 750 (49%), respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the response rates of individuals with any of the 10 health conditions. However,
Discussion
Our study supports previous research that participants want genetic research results.14 We found that preferences regarding disclosure of individual genetic research results vary on the basis of the type of research result. Most participants in our study wanted genetic research results disclosed across all the hypothetical scenarios. Even when no intervention was available, 64% definitely wanted results and 20% probably wanted results disclosed. Similarly, even when there was uncertainty about
Conclusion
Participants in the OurGenes biobank have a strong preference to receive genetic research results, even when there is uncertainty around the meaning of the research result. Participants want to disclose results to their primary care practitioner and to have results disclosed to their nearest biological relative after death. Future studies should examine best practices for disclosing research results.34 By considering participants' preferences and increasing knowledge of the effect of research
Acknowledgments
We thank the BWH's Biomedical Research Institute's Center for Human Genetics working group for support of this project and the OurGenes participants who responded to our survey.
References (34)
- et al.
Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study
Genet Med
(2008) - et al.
An empirical examination of the management of return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks
Genet Med
(2012) - et al.
IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research
Genet Med
(2012) - et al.
Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the electronic medical records & genomics (eMERGE) Network
Genet Med
(2012) - et al.
Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study
Genet Med
(2012) - et al.
Research electronic data capture (REDCap): a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support
J Biomed Inform
(2009) - et al.
Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets
Genet Med
(2012) - et al.
Researchers' views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings
Genet Med
(2013) - et al.
Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetic research
Advances Genet
(2008) - et al.
Men, women and risk aversion: experimental evidence
Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results
Genet Med
Disclosure of research results from cancer genomic studies: state of the science
Clin Cancer Res
The return of individual research findings in paediatric genetic research
J Med Ethics
Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research
Am J Bioeth
Returning individual research results: what role should people's preferences play?
Minn J L Sci Tech
Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants
Am J Bioeth
Discussing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility
Genome Res
Cited by (50)
Preferences for a polygenic test to estimate cancer risk in a general Australian population
2022, Genetics in MedicineCitation Excerpt :Much research has focused on participant views related to PRS testing for individual cancer types, however we do not know whether people have a preference to test for specific cancer types or whether they would like to be tested for multiple cancers at the same time.12-14 Previous genomic studies have indicated a wish for individuals to know their personal risk of a condition regardless of whether there is a preventative or treatment option available, although if measures do exist, lifestyle interventions have been preferred over medication or surgery.15-17 From a service delivery perspective, the broad accessibility of primary care physicians (PCPs) means that they are likely to be central in providing PRS information to the public.
Communicating unexpected pharmacogenomic results to biobank contributors: A focus group study
2021, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :Biobank contributors are often unaware of the studies using their samples, and often do not recall their donation or aspects of the consent process [58,59]. In keeping with prior biobank return of results studies, focus group participants reported positive appreciation of disclosure despite the passage of time since biobank broad consent [60,61], even reframing shock and surprise as positive experiences. These findings also concord with disease susceptibility studies which elicited approval from the vast majority of recipients when using letters to disclose unexpected genetic results, [62,63].
Mimicking Real-Life Decision Making in Health: Allowing Respondents Time to Think in a Discrete Choice Experiment
2020, Value in HealthCitation Excerpt :The Regional Ethical Review Board in Gothenburg approved the study (Dnr: 610-16) in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. Attributes and levels were identified based on previously published literature,28–35 4 focus group interviews with a total of 16 SCAPIS research participants, and in-depth discussion with 5 experts (eg, clinical geneticists, genetic counselor). Finally, 4 attributes were selected for this DCE (Table 1).
Reporting of secondary findings in genomic research: Stakeholders’ attitudes and preferences
2020, Secondary Findings in Genomic ResearchResearch participants’ preferences for receiving genetic risk information: a discrete choice experiment
2019, Genetics in MedicineCitation Excerpt :Participants with prior experience were more positive about the opt-out alternative (1.37 (p < 0.01)). Previous studies indicate that research participants want genomic findings to be disclosed.1-4 Even though participants are confronted with the complexity of genetic risk information (using the DCE method), they still prefer to be informed about genetic test results to a large extent (Table 4).
Impact of selection bias on polygenic risk score estimates in healthcare settings
2023, Psychological Medicine
Grant Support: OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity was supported by an institutional grant from the Brigham and Women's Hospital Biomedical Research Institute and has received an unrestricted grant from Hewlett Packard. Dr Karlson was supported by National Institutes of Health grants AR052403, AR047782, and AR049880. Dr Seidman was supported by Howard Hughes Medical Institute and National Institutes of Health grant U01HG006500. Dr Lehmann was supported by the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.