Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice
- PMID: 28357777
- PMCID: PMC5620108
- DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0095-6
Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice
Abstract
The therapeutic use of genomic sequencing creates novel and unresolved questions about cost, clinical efficacy, access, and the disclosure of sequencing results. The disclosure of the secondary results of sequencing poses a particularly challenging ethical problem. Experts disagree about which results should be shared and public input - especially important for the creation of disclosure policies - is complicated by the complex nature of genetics. Recognizing the value of deliberative democratic methods for soliciting informed public opinion on matters like these, we recruited participants from a clinical research site for an all-day deliberative democracy (DD) session. Participants were introduced to the clinical and ethical issues associated with genomic sequencing, after which they discussed the tradeoffs and offered their opinions about policies for the return of secondary results. Participants (n = 66; mean age = 57 (SD = 15); 70% female; 76% white) were divided into 10 small groups (5 to 8 participants each) allowing interactive deliberation on policy options for the return of three categories of secondary results: 1) medically actionable results; 2) risks for adult-onset disorders identified in children; and 3) carrier status for autosomal recessive disorders. In our qualitative analysis of the session transcripts, we found that while participants favored choice and had a preference for making information available, they also acknowledged the risks (and benefits) of learning such information. Our research reveals the nuanced reasoning used by members of the public when weighing the pros and cons of receiving genomic information, enriching our understanding of the findings of surveys of attitudes regarding access to secondary results.
Keywords: Deliberative democracy; Disclosure of results; Ethics; Incidental findings; Participant preferences; Public policy; Qualitative analysis; Return of genomic results; Secondary results.
Conflict of interest statement
Kerry Ryan, Raymond De Vries, Wendy Uhlmann, J. Scott Roberts, and Michele Gornick declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing.J Genet Couns. 2017 Feb;26(1):122-132. doi: 10.1007/s10897-016-9987-0. Epub 2016 Jun 16. J Genet Couns. 2017. PMID: 27307100 Free PMC article.
-
Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.CMAJ. 2015 Apr 7;187(6):E190-E197. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.140697. Epub 2015 Mar 9. CMAJ. 2015. PMID: 25754703 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research.Soc Sci Med. 2010 Jun;70(12):1896-1903. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.031. Epub 2010 Mar 16. Soc Sci Med. 2010. PMID: 20378225 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Secondary findings from whole-exome/genome sequencing evaluating stakeholder perspectives. A review of the literature.Eur J Med Genet. 2019 Jun;62(6):103529. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.08.010. Epub 2018 Aug 28. Eur J Med Genet. 2019. PMID: 30165243 Review.
-
Managing the ethical challenges of next-generation sequencing in genomic medicine.Br Med Bull. 2014 Sep;111(1):17-30. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldu017. Epub 2014 Aug 13. Br Med Bull. 2014. PMID: 25122627 Review.
Cited by
-
In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research.Public Health Genomics. 2020;23(1-2):42-53. doi: 10.1159/000506599. Epub 2020 Apr 15. Public Health Genomics. 2020. PMID: 32294660 Free PMC article.
-
Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study.Glob Bioeth. 2021 Mar 9;32(1):15-33. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2021.1896453. Glob Bioeth. 2021. PMID: 33762814 Free PMC article.
-
Interpretations of the Term "Actionable" when Discussing Genetic Test Results: What you Mean Is Not What I Heard.J Genet Couns. 2019 Apr;28(2):334-342. doi: 10.1007/s10897-018-0289-6. Epub 2018 Dec 20. J Genet Couns. 2019. PMID: 30964581 Free PMC article.
-
Policy Preferences Regarding Health Data Sharing Among Patients With Cancer: Public Deliberations.JMIR Cancer. 2023 Jan 31;9:e39631. doi: 10.2196/39631. JMIR Cancer. 2023. PMID: 36719719 Free PMC article.
-
Perspectives and preferences regarding genomic secondary findings in underrepresented prenatal and pediatric populations: A mixed-methods approach.Genet Med. 2022 Jun;24(6):1206-1216. doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.02.004. Epub 2022 Apr 8. Genet Med. 2022. PMID: 35396980 Free PMC article.
References
-
- ACMG Board of Directors. ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2015;17:68–69. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.151. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Appelbaum PS, Fyer A, Klitzman RL, Martinez J, Parens E, Zhang Y, Chung WK. Researchers’ views on informed consent for return of secondary results in genomic research. Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2015;17:644–650. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.163. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous