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
. 2019 Jan-Mar;10(1):1-22.
doi: 10.1080/23294515.2018.1546241. Epub 2018 Dec 31.

Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences

Affiliations

Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences

Deborah R Gordon et al. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2019 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Background: Genomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death?

Methods: Preferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively.

Results: Fifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing.

Conclusions: Although additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy-without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families-cannot be the sole foundation of policy.

Keywords: Return of results; ethics of disclosure; family communication; genomics; incidental findings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Interview study enrollment and completion diagram.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Allen NL, Karlson EW, Malspeis S, Lu B, Seidman CE, and Lehmann LS. 2014. “Biobank participants’ preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: Perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 89 (6):738–46. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.03.015. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amendola LM, Horike-Pyne M, Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Evans BJ, Burke W, and Jarvik GP. 2015. “Patients’ choice for return of exome sequencing results to relatives in the event of their death.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43 (3):476–485. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aronowitz R 2015. Risky medicine: Our quest to cure fear and uncertainty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    1. Arribas-Ayllon M, Featherstone K, and Atkinson P. 2011. “The practical ethics of genetic responsibility: Non-disclosure and the autonomy of affect.” Social Theory & Health 9 (1):3–23.
    1. Atkinson P, Featherstone K, and Gregory M. 2013. “Kinscapes, timescapes and genescapes: Families living with genetic risk.” Sociology of Health and Illness 35 (8):1227–41. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12034. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types