Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.
Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/75d9941db23c471dbf8fa1cbf87a380c |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| id |
oai:doaj.org-article:75d9941db23c471dbf8fa1cbf87a380c |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:doaj.org-article:75d9941db23c471dbf8fa1cbf87a380c2021-12-02T20:06:00ZReturn of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0258646https://doaj.org/article/75d9941db23c471dbf8fa1cbf87a380c2021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258646https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.Danya F VearsJoel T MinionStephanie J RobertsJames CummingsMavis MachiroriMwenza BlellIsabelle Budin-LjøsneLorraine CowleyStephanie O M DykeClara GaffRobert GreenAlison HallAmber L JohnsBartha M KnoppersStephanie MulrineChristine PatchEva WinklerMadeleine J MurtaghPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 11, p e0258646 (2021) |
| institution |
DOAJ |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
EN |
| topic |
Medicine R Science Q |
| spellingShingle |
Medicine R Science Q Danya F Vears Joel T Minion Stephanie J Roberts James Cummings Mavis Machirori Mwenza Blell Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne Lorraine Cowley Stephanie O M Dyke Clara Gaff Robert Green Alison Hall Amber L Johns Bartha M Knoppers Stephanie Mulrine Christine Patch Eva Winkler Madeleine J Murtagh Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. |
| description |
Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants. |
| format |
article |
| author |
Danya F Vears Joel T Minion Stephanie J Roberts James Cummings Mavis Machirori Mwenza Blell Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne Lorraine Cowley Stephanie O M Dyke Clara Gaff Robert Green Alison Hall Amber L Johns Bartha M Knoppers Stephanie Mulrine Christine Patch Eva Winkler Madeleine J Murtagh |
| author_facet |
Danya F Vears Joel T Minion Stephanie J Roberts James Cummings Mavis Machirori Mwenza Blell Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne Lorraine Cowley Stephanie O M Dyke Clara Gaff Robert Green Alison Hall Amber L Johns Bartha M Knoppers Stephanie Mulrine Christine Patch Eva Winkler Madeleine J Murtagh |
| author_sort |
Danya F Vears |
| title |
Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. |
| title_short |
Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. |
| title_full |
Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. |
| title_fullStr |
Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. |
| title_sort |
return of individual research results from genomic research: a systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. |
| publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/75d9941db23c471dbf8fa1cbf87a380c |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT danyafvears returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT joeltminion returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT stephaniejroberts returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT jamescummings returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT mavismachirori returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT mwenzablell returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT isabellebudinljøsne returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT lorrainecowley returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT stephanieomdyke returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT claragaff returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT robertgreen returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT alisonhall returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT amberljohns returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT barthamknoppers returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT stephaniemulrine returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT christinepatch returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT evawinkler returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives AT madeleinejmurtagh returnofindividualresearchresultsfromgenomicresearchasystematicreviewofstakeholderperspectives |
| _version_ |
1718375433747038208 |