» Articles » PMID: 24616381

Return of Results: Ethical and Legal Distinctions Between Research and Clinical Care

Overview
Specialty Genetics
Date 2014 Mar 12
PMID 24616381
Citations 59
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The return of individual results to research participants has been vigorously debated. Consensus statements indicate that researchers and bioethicists consider the return of research results most appropriate when the findings are clinically relevant. Even when clinical utility is the motivator, however, the return of individual research results is not equivalent to clinical care. There are important differences in the domains of research and medical care, both from a legal standpoint and in terms of the ethical responsibilities of clinicians and researchers. As a corollary, researchers risk promoting a therapeutic misconception if they create quasi-clinical settings for return of clinically relevant research results. Rather, efforts should be focused on clarity in the provision of research results, appropriate caveats and, most important, appropriate referrals when the results may be helpful to consider in medical care.

Citing Articles

Willingness to participate in a personalized health cohort - insights from the swiss health study pilot phase.

Buhler N, Frahsa A, Jaramillo N, Bourqui R, Nussle S, Zuppinger C BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):2140.

PMID: 39112992 PMC: 11305038. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19650-z.


Interrogating the Value of Return of Results for Diverse Populations: Perspectives from Precision Medicine Researchers.

McMahon C, Foti N, Jeske M, Britton W, Fullerton S, Shim J AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2023; 15(2):108-119.

PMID: 37962912 PMC: 11090989. DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2023.2279965.


Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE.

Clayton E, Smith M, Anderson K, Chung W, Connolly J, Fullerton S Am J Hum Genet. 2023; 110(7):1021-1033.

PMID: 37343562 PMC: 10357472. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.05.011.


Persuasive Appeals in Genetic Biobank Recruitment Campaigns: Social and Ethical Implications.

Meitern M, Hansson S J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023; 18(4):284-295.

PMID: 37337739 PMC: 10496419. DOI: 10.1177/15562646231181028.


Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry.

Shen F, Baum M, Martinez-Martin N, Miner A, Abraham M, Brownstein C Am J Bioeth. 2023; 24(2):69-90.

PMID: 37155651 PMC: 10630534. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2180109.


References
1.
Lemke A, Halverson C, Friedman Ross L . Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago. Am J Med Genet A. 2012; 158A(5):1029-37. PMC: 3331902. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34414. View

2.
Bookman E, Langehorne A, Eckfeldt J, Glass K, Jarvik G, Klag M . Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. Am J Med Genet A. 2006; 140(10):1033-40. PMC: 2556074. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.31195. View

3.
Gordon M . A legal duty to disclose individual research findings to research subjects?. Food Drug Law J. 2009; 64(1):225-60. View

4.
Shalowitz D, Miller F . Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. JAMA. 2005; 294(6):737-40. DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.6.737. View

5.
Knoppers B, Joly Y, Simard J, Durocher F . The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet. 2006; 14(11):1170-8. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201690. View