MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2559081861 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.2069.2069

Attitudes of Researchers to the Return of Incidental and Targeted Genomic Findings Obtained in a Research Setting to Participants

2012· article· en· W2559081861 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Conrad V. Fernandez, Denise Avard, Bartha Maria Knoppers, Colleen O’Connell, David Malkin, Caron Strahlendorf, Nada Jabado, Éric Bouffet, Kym M. Boycott, Poul H. Sorensen

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics in Clinical Research
Établissements canadiensChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenMcGill Genome CentreMontreal Children's HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreSickKids FoundationBC Children's HospitalDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineFamily medicinePsychologyMedical education

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2069 Background: The use of genomic research has exploded in recent years. Various guidelines recommend disclosure of significant, clinically validated findings to participants. Continued debate in this area has led to calls for stakeholder involvement to inform policy. In particular, the attitudes of genomics researchers are salient yet relatively unexplored with respect to how the sharing of both targeted and incidental findings should be accomplished. Methods: All 107 researchers affiliated with two large-scale Genome Canada projects [Canadian Pediatric Cancer Genome Consortium (CPCGC) and the Finding of Rare Genes Canada Consortium (FORGE)] were surveyed using a mailed, validated 32-item questionnaire that had been pilot tested with genomics researchers. The survey was designed to cover a wide range of topics including attitudes of researchers to the return of incidental and targeted research results, the need for genetic counselling, responsibilities to participants over time, to child participants and to siblings of participants, and institutional ethics review. Two reminders were sent to non-respondents. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: 74/107 (69%) responded. Most were between 41–55 yr of age (n=40, 54%) and had their most senior training inNorth America (n=67, 91%). The majority were experienced researchers (n=58, 78%) and felt comfortable in discussing genomic results with participants (n= 66, 89%). Respondents did not feel a strong responsibility to look for meaningful incidental results in the genomic data set they created (n=27, 37%). However, once potentially significant results were identified, researchers indicated that participants had a strong or very strong right to receive analytically validated genomic results irrespective of whether these results were incidental findings (n= 50, 68%) or primary targets of the research (n= 64, 87%). Most indicated that results with clinical utility that were actionable should be offered to participants (n=54, 73%) although some indicated that research results should not be returned under any circumstances (n=6, 8%). The majority felt that a research result should be confirmed in a clinical lab prior to return to participants (n=51, 69%). Most indicated that genetic counselling should be provided either almost always or frequently prior to genomic research participation (n=48, 64%). Respondents indicated that siblings of genomic research participants had a strong or very strong right to be informed of results (n=46, 62%), and this was especially true if an intervention to ameliorate the identified condition is feasible (n=56, 76%). A minority of researchers felt personal responsibility to ensure genomic research results obtained on a child of potential clinical utility were eventually communicated to him/her when the child became an adult (n=10, 14%). A slim majority felt the parents or health care provider should be responsible (n=38, 51%). Some researchers reported encountering incidental findings of clinical utility (n=25, 34%) and had offered them to participants. However, the minority reported that their institutional ethics review boards either always (n=10, 14%) or sometimes (n=24, 32%) required an offer of results. Only 16 (22%) indicated that their ethics board had a detailed process on how to do so. Conclusions: Researchers in general support the offer of return of targeted and incidental genomic research results to participants. A minority strongly oppose such action. There is typically a high degree of support for the offer of genomic research findings to siblings, especially if actionable. Given the new developments in genomics and resulting incidental findings, researchers describe little specific guidance about the process that should be followed in returning results to participants. Greater policy guidance would be of assistance in providing a consistent approach to the offer of incidental or targeted genomic research results. Acknowledgments: Funded by Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,069
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,998
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,365

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0690,150
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,004
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,619
Tête enseignante GPT0,603
Écart entre enseignants0,016 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetEthics in Clinical Research→Travaux en français237 207→