Article Text
Abstract
Purpose To identify the specific needs, preferences and expectations of the stakeholders impacted by returning neuroimaging incidental findings to research participants.
Methods Six key stakeholder groups were identified to participate in focus group discussions at our active neuroimaging research facility: Participants, Parents of child participants, Investigators, Institutional Review Board (IRB) Members, Physicians and Community Members. A total of 151 subjects attended these discussions. Transcripts were analysed using principles of Grounded Theory and group consensus coding.
Results A series of similar and divergent themes were identified across our subject groups. Similarities included beliefs that it is ethical for researchers to disclose incidental findings as it grants certain health and emotional benefits to participants. All stakeholders also recognised the potential psychological and financial risks to disclosure. Divergent perspectives elucidated consistent differences between our ‘Participant’ subjects (Participants, Parents, Community Members) and our ‘Professional’ subjects (IRB Members, Investigators and Physicians). Key differences included (1) what results should be reported, (2) participants’ autonomous right to research information and (3) the perception of the risk–benefit ratio in managing results.
Conclusions Understanding the perceived impact on all stakeholders involved in the process of disclosing incidental findings is necessary to determine appropriate research management policy. Our data further demonstrate the challenge of this task as different stakeholders evaluate the balance between risk and benefit related to their unique positions in this process. These findings offer some of the first qualitative insight into the expectations of the diverse stakeholders affected by incidental finding disclosure.
- Research Ethics
- Neuroimaging
- Autonomy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study
- When are clinical trials beneficial for study patients and future patients? A factorial vignette-based survey of institutional review board members
- Variations in institutional review board processes and consent requirements for trauma research: an EAST multicenter survey
- A qualitative study of institutional review board members’ experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent
- Ethics committees for biomedical research in some African emerging countries: which establishment for which independence? A comparison with the USA and Canada
- Clinical research with economically disadvantaged populations
- Developing capacity to protect human research subjects in a post-conflict, resource-constrained setting: procedures and prospects
- How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence
- Practices and challenges of community engagement in health research in Ethiopia: a qualitative study
- How US institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies