Public Preferences for the Return of Research Results in Genetic Research: a Conjoint Analysis

Overview

Journal Genet Med

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Genetics

Date 2014 May 24

PMID 24854226

Citations 25

Authors

Juli Murphy Bollinger

John F P Bridges

Ateesha Mohamed

David Kaufman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Recent policies specifying criteria about which individual research results to return leave considerable discretion to researchers. This study investigated the types of results that the public wants when participating in genetic research and whether preferences differ based on willingness to participate.

Methods: A representative survey of US adults used conjoint analysis to measure priorities among eight principles of a results policy for a proposed large-cohort study. Policy preferences were measured using 12 tasks in which respondents chose between two groupings of the policy principles. Stratified analysis compared those self-identified as likely or unlikely to participate in genomic research.

Results: Of 1,515 respondents, 56% would participate in the proposed study. All eight principles were positively endorsed by participants (all P < 0.003), with priority placed on providing results at no cost and returning well-validated results for treatable and serious diseases. Providing detailed result reports was more highly valued than providing staff to explain results (P = 0.0005). Receiving results about major changes in risk was marginally disvalued by those unlikely to participate (P = 0.35).

Conclusion: Public preferences for well-validated individual research results for serious, actionable diseases agree with emerging recommendations. However, because preferences for receiving individual research results vary, some choices should be offered to research participants.

Citing Articles

Return of Individual Research Results: Participant Perspectives in a Longitudinal Community-Based Sample.

Angal J, Brockevelt B, Caraway S, Kenyon D, Ziegler K, Elliott A J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023; 18(3):109-117.

PMID: 37192743 PMC: 10468824. DOI: 10.1177/15562646231173745.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review.

Iltis A, Rolf L, Yaeger L, Goodman M, DuBois J J Genet Couns. 2023; 32(2):435-461.

PMID: 36644818 PMC: 10349658. DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1653.

Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study.

Kisiangani I, Mohamed S, Kyobutungi C, Tindana P, Ghansah A, Ramsay M BMC Med Ethics. 2022; 23(1):27.

PMID: 35300680 PMC: 8932129. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-022-00767-y.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Vears D, Minion J, Roberts S, Cummings J, Machirori M, Blell M PLoS One. 2021; 16(11):e0258646.

PMID: 34748551 PMC: 8575249. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258646.

Enhancing the Impact of Genomics Research in Autism through Integration of Research Results into Routine Care Pathways-A Case Series.

Peltekova I, Buhas D, Stern L, Kirby E, Yusuf A, Elsabbagh M J Pers Med. 2021; 11(8).

PMID: 34442399 PMC: 8400173. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11080755.

References

Akkazieva B, Gulacsi L, Brandtmuller A, Pentek M, Bridges J . Patients' preferences for healthcare system reforms in Hungary: a conjoint analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006; 5(3):189-98. DOI: 10.2165/00148365-200605030-00005. View

Westbrook M, Wright M, Van Driest S, McGregor T, Denny J, Zuvich R . Mapping the incidentalome: estimating incidental findings generated through clinical pharmacogenomics testing. Genet Med. 2012; 15(5):325-31. PMC: 3648626. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.147. View

Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K . Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth. 2008; 8(11):36-43. PMC: 2682364. DOI: 10.1080/15265160802513093. View

Dorschner M, Amendola L, Turner E, Robertson P, Shirts B, Gallego C . Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants' exomes. Am J Hum Genet. 2013; 93(4):631-40. PMC: 3791261. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.08.006. View

Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier D . Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013; 16(1):3-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223. View

Murphy Bollinger J, Scott J, Dvoskin R, Kaufman D . Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med. 2012; 14(4):451-7. PMC: 3927946. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2011.66. View

Parker L . Best laid plans for offering results go awry. Am J Bioeth. 2006; 6(6):22-3. DOI: 10.1080/15265160600934913. View

Gliwa C, Berkman B . Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings?. Am J Bioeth. 2013; 13(2):32-42. PMC: 4138545. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2012.754062. View

Kopits I, Chen C, Roberts J, Uhlmann W, Green R . Willingness to pay for genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease: a measure of personal utility. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2011; 15(12):871-5. PMC: 3241735. DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2011.0028. View

10.

Kaufman D, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Scott J . Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J Genet Couns. 2012; 21(3):413-22. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-012-9483-0. View

11.

Grosse S, McBride C, Evans J, Khoury M . Personal utility and genomic information: look before you leap. Genet Med. 2009; 11(8):575-6. PMC: 3417335. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181af0a80. View

12.

Berg J, Adams M, Nassar N, Bizon C, Lee K, Schmitt C . An informatics approach to analyzing the incidentalome. Genet Med. 2012; 15(1):36-44. PMC: 3538953. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.112. View

13.

Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K . Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med. 2008; 10(11):831-9. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818bb3ab. View

14.

Collins F, Manolio T . Merging and emerging cohorts: necessary but not sufficient. Nature. 2007; 445(7125):259. DOI: 10.1038/445259a. View

15.

Green R, Berg J, Grody W, Kalia S, Korf B, Martin C . ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013; 15(7):565-74. PMC: 3727274. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.73. View

16.

Knoppers B, Deschenes M, Zawati M, Tasse A . Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings Policy Statement. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012; 21(3):245-7. PMC: 3573193. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.152. View

17.

Kaufman D, Murphy J, Erby L, Hudson K, Scott J . Veterans' attitudes regarding a database for genomic research. Genet Med. 2009; 11(5):329-37. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31819994f8. View

18.

Wallace S, Kent A . Population biobanks and returning individual research results: mission impossible or new directions?. Hum Genet. 2011; 130(3):393-401. DOI: 10.1007/s00439-011-1021-x. View

19.

Sharp R, Foster M . Clinical utility and full disclosure of genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth. 2006; 6(6):42-4. DOI: 10.1080/15265160600938443. View

20.

Townsend A, Adam S, Birch P, Lohn Z, Rousseau F, Friedman J . "I want to know what's in Pandora's Box": comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A. 2012; 158A(10):2519-25. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35554. View