The opportunity to receive individual research results (IRRs) in accordance with personal preferences may incentivize biobank participation and maximize perceived benefit. This trial investigated the relationship between parents’ preferences and intent to participate (ITP) in biobank research utilizing their child’s genetic information. We randomized parents of pediatric patients to four hypothetical biobanks, one of which employed a preference-setting model for return of results regarding their child. ITP was highest among those desiring all types of IRRs (93.3%) and decreased as participants became increasingly selective with their preferences (p < .0001). We demonstrated that most parents would participate in a biobank that allows for preference setting; however, those who set preferences to receive a narrower set of IRRs are less likely to participate.
AshleyE. A. (2015). The precision medicine initiative: A new national effort. Journal of the American Medical Association, 313, 2119-2120.
2.
BaconP. L.HarrisE. D.ZinielS. I.SavageS. K.WeitzmanE. R.GreenR. C.. . . HolmI. A. (2015). The development of a preference-setting model for the return of individual genomic research results. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10, 107-120. doi:10.1177/1556264615572092
3.
BennetteC. S.TrinidadS. B.FullertonS. M.PatrickD.AmendolaL.BurkeW.. . . VeenstraD. L. (2013). Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: Measuring what patients value-Development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genetics in Medicine, 15, 873-881. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.63
4.
BergJ. S.KhouryM. J.EvansJ. P. (2011). Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 499-504.
5.
BollingerJ. M.ScottJ.DvoskinR.KaufmanD. (2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: Findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 451-457. doi:10.1038/gim.2011.66
6.
BredenoordA. L.KroesH. Y.CuppenE.ParkerM.van DeldenJ. J. (2011). Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics, 27, 41-47. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2010.11.004
7.
BrothersK. B.ClaytonE. W. (2012). Parental perspectives on a pediatric human non-subjects biobank. AJOB Primary Research, 3(3), 21-29.
8.
ChaoS.RobertsJ. S.MarteauT. M.SillimanR.CupplesL. A.GreenR. C. (2008). Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: The REVEAL Study. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 22, 94-97. doi:10.1097/WAD.0b013e31815a9dcc
9.
FlemingJ.CritchleyC.OtlowskiM.StewartC.KerridgeI. (2015). Attitudes of the general public towards the disclosure of individual research results and incidental findings from biobank genomic research in Australia. Internal Medicine Journal, 45, 1274-1279. doi:10.1111/imj.12911
10.
GoodingH. C.LinnenbringerE. L.BurackJ.RobertsJ. S.GreenR. C.BieseckerB. B. (2006). Genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer disease: Motivation to obtain information and control as precursors to coping with increased risk. Patient Education and Counseling, 64, 259-267.
11.
HarrisE. D.ZinielS. I.AmatrudaJ. G.ClintonC. M.SavageS. K.TaylorP. L.. . . HolmI. A. (2012). The beliefs, motivations, and expectations of parents who have enrolled their children in a genetic biorepository. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 330-337. doi:10.1038/gim.2011.25
12.
HarrisP. A.TaylorR.ThielkeR.PayneJ.GonzalezN.CondeJ. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42, 377-381.
13.
HolmI. A.SavageS. K.GreenR. C.JuengstE.McGuireA.KornetskyS.. . . TaylorP. (2014). Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: Deliberations of the Boston Children’s Hospital gene partnership informed cohort oversight board. Genetics in Medicine, 16, 547-552.
14.
HudsonK.LiftonR.Patrick-LakeB.BurchardE. G.ColesT.CollinsR.. . . SiegelS. (2015). The precision medicine initiative cohort program—Building a research foundation for 21st century medicine (Precision Medicine Initiative [PMI] Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH). Retrieved from http://www.nih.gov/precisionmedicine/09172015-pmi-working-group-report.pdf
15.
KaufmanD.MurphyJ.ScottJ.HudsonK. (2008). Subjects matter: A survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genetics in Medicine, 10, 831-839.
16.
ManolioT. A.Bailey-WilsonJ. E.CollinsF. S. (2006). Genes, environment and the value of prospective cohort studies. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7, 812-820.
17.
MeulenkampT. M.GeversS. K.BovenbergJ. A.KoppelmanG. H.van Hylckama VliegA.SmetsE. M. (2010). Communication of biobanks’ research results: What do (potential) participants want?American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 152, 2482-2492.
18.
MurphyJ.ScottJ.KaufmanD.GellerG.LeRoyL.HudsonK. (2008). Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8, 36-43. doi:10.1080/15265160802513093
19.
O’DanielJ.HagaS. B. (2011). Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results. Public Health Genomics, 14, 346-355. doi:10.1159/000324933
20.
ParkerL. S. (2012). Returning individual research results: What role should people’s preferences play?Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 13, 449-484.
21.
RavitskyV.WilfondB. S. (2006). Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. American Journal of Bioethics, 6, 8-17.
22.
RobertsJ. S.CupplesL. A.RelkinN. R.WhitehouseP. J.GreenR. C.GroupR. S. (2005). Genetic risk assessment for adult children of people with Alzheimer’s disease: The risk evaluation and education for Alzheimer’s disease (REVEAL) study. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 18, 250-255. doi:10.1177/0891988705281883
23.
SandersonS. C.BrothersK. B.MercaldoN. D.ClaytonE. W.AntommariaA. H.AufoxS. A.. . . HolmI. A. (2017). Public attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobank research: A large multi-site experimental survey in the US. American Journal of Human Genetics, 100, 414-427.
24.
StreicherS. A.SandersonS. C.JabsE. W.DiefenbachM.SmirnoffM.PeterI.. . . RichardsonL. D. (2011). Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: A focus group study. Journal of Community Genetics, 2, 153-163.
25.
YuJ. H.CrouchJ.JamalS. M.BamshadM. J.TaborH. K. (2014). Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 164, 2153-2160.
26.
YuJ. H.JamalS. M.TaborH. K.BamshadM. J. (2013). Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: Changing the results return model. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 684-690. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.35
27.
ZinielS. I.SavageS. K.HuntingtonN.AmatrudaJ.GreenR. C.WeitzmanE. R.. . . HolmI. A. (2014). Parents’ preferences for return of results in pediatric genomic research. Public Health Genomics, 17, 105-114.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
