Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 May;16(5):367-73.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.145. Epub 2013 Oct 24.

Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research

Paul S Appelbaum  1 , Cameron R Waldman  2 , Abby Fyer  1 , Robert Klitzman  1 , Erik Parens  2 , Josue Martinez  3 , W Nicholson Price 2nd  4 , Wendy K Chung  5
Affiliations

Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research

Paul S Appelbaum et al. Genet Med. 2014 May.

Abstract

Purpose: Researchers face the dilemma of how to obtain consent for return of incidental findings from genomic research. We surveyed and interviewed investigators and study participants, with the goal of providing suggestions for how to shape the consent process.

Methods: We performed an online survey of 254 US genetic researchers identified through the NIH RePORTER database, abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting, and qualitative semi-structured interviews with 28 genomic researchers and 20 research participants.

Results: Most researchers and participants endorsed disclosure of a wide range of information about return of incidental findings, including risks, benefits, impact on family members, data security, and procedures, for return of results in the event of death or incapacity and for recontact. However, most researchers were willing to devote 30 min or less to this process and expressed concerns that disclosed information would overwhelm participants, a concern shared by many participants themselves.

Conclusion: There is a disjunction between the views of investigators and participants about the amount of information that should be disclosed and the practical realities of the research setting, including the time available for consent discussions. This strongly suggests the need for innovative approaches to the informed consent process.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest with regard to the information presented in this paper.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Researchers’ Views on Amount of Time that Should Be Allocated for Informed Consent on Return of IFs (n=238)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. McEwen JE, Boyer JT, Sun KY. Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data. Trends Genet. 2013;29:1–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cassa CA, Savage SK, Taylor PL, Green PC, McGuire AL, Mandl KD. Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: Quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility. Genome Res. 2012;22(3):421–428. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Ness BV, et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med. 2012;14(4):361–384. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wendler D, Emanuel E. The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? Arch Intern Med. 2002:1457–1462. - PubMed
    1. Kaphingst KA, Janoff JM, Harris LN, Emmons KM. Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clin Genet. 2006;69:393–398. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources