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
. 2017 Mar;19(3):283-293.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.109. Epub 2016 Sep 1.

Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Affiliations

Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Michael P Mackley et al. Genet Med. 2017 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: As whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) move into routine clinical practice, it is timely to review data that might inform the debate regarding secondary findings (SF) and the development of policies that maximize participant benefit.

Methods: We systematically searched for qualitative and quantitative studies that explored stakeholder views on SF in WES/WGS. Framework analysis was undertaken to identify major themes.

Results: Forty-four articles reporting the views of 11,566 stakeholders were included. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of returning "actionable" findings, but definitions of actionability varied. Stakeholder views on SF disclosure exist along a spectrum: potential WES/WGS recipients' views were largely influenced by a sense of rights, whereas views of genomics professionals were informed by a sense of professional responsibility. Experience with genetic illness and testing resulted in greater caution about SF, suggesting that truly informed decisions require an understanding of the implications and limitations of WES/WGS and possible findings.

Conclusion: This review suggests that bidirectional interaction during consent might best facilitate informed decision making about SF and that dynamic forms of consent, allowing for changing preferences, should be considered. Research exploring views from wider perspectives and from recipients who have received SF is critical if evidence-based policies are to be achieved.Genet Med 19 3, 283-293.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Theoretical framework illustrating factors influencing stakeholder preferences regarding disclosure of secondary findings in whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing.

References

    1. Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, et al.; eMERGE Act-ROR Committee and CERC Committee; CSER Act-ROR Working Group. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet 2014;94:818–826. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. Secondary variants–in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:1331–1334. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shkedi-Rafid S, Dheensa S, Crawford G, Fenwick A, Lucassen A. Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice. J Med Genet 2014;51:715–723. - PubMed
    1. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts. 2013. http://bioethics.gov/ sites/default/files/FINALAnticipateCommunicate_PCSBI_0.pdf.Accessed 1 May 2016. - PubMed
    1. MacArthur DG, Balasubramanian S, Frankish A, et al.; 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. A systematic survey of loss-of-function variants in human protein-coding genes. Science 2012;335:823–828. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types