Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences
- PMID: 30596322
- PMCID: PMC6443426
- DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2018.1546241
Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences
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.
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
Similar articles
-
Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review.Eur J Hum Genet. 2020 Apr;28(4):403-416. doi: 10.1038/s41431-019-0503-5. Epub 2019 Sep 16. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020. PMID: 31527854 Free PMC article.
-
Attitudes Toward Return of Genetic Research Results to Relatives, Including After Death: Comparison of Cancer Probands, Blood Relatives, and Spouse/Partners.J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018 Jul;13(3):295-304. doi: 10.1177/1556264618769165. Epub 2018 Apr 27. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018. PMID: 29701109 Free PMC article.
-
Ethical concerns on sharing genomic data including patients' family members.BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jun 18;19(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0310-5. BMC Med Ethics. 2018. PMID: 29914459 Free PMC article.
-
Preferences Regarding Return of Genomic Results to Relatives of Research Participants, Including after Participant Death: Empirical Results from a Cancer Biobank.J Law Med Ethics. 2015 Fall;43(3):464-75. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12289. J Law Med Ethics. 2015. PMID: 26479556 Free PMC article.
-
Research participants' perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis.BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Sep 9;16:60. doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0053-5. BMC Med Ethics. 2015. PMID: 26354520 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Development of a digital risk-prediction tool based on family health history for the general population: legal and ethical implications.J Community Genet. 2025 Feb;16(1):73-81. doi: 10.1007/s12687-024-00761-4. Epub 2024 Dec 14. J Community Genet. 2025. PMID: 39673579 Free PMC article.
-
Returning individual research results to participants: Values, preferences, and expectations.J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Sep 18;8(1):e126. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.568. eCollection 2024. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024. PMID: 39345708 Free PMC article.
-
Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review.Eur J Hum Genet. 2020 Apr;28(4):403-416. doi: 10.1038/s41431-019-0503-5. Epub 2019 Sep 16. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020. PMID: 31527854 Free PMC article.
-
Becoming and being a biobank donor: The role of relationships and ethics.PLoS One. 2020 Nov 23;15(11):e0242828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242828. eCollection 2020. PLoS One. 2020. PMID: 33227030 Free PMC article.
-
Immortal data: a qualitative exploration of patients' understandings of genomic data.Eur J Hum Genet. 2023 Jun;31(6):681-686. doi: 10.1038/s41431-023-01325-9. Epub 2023 Mar 31. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023. PMID: 37002328 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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
-
- Aronowitz R 2015. Risky medicine: Our quest to cure fear and uncertainty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
- 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.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical