Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease

Katie Fiallos, Carolyn Applegate, Debra J.H. Mathews, Juli Bollinger, Amanda L. Bergner, Cynthia A. James

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Abstract

Although consensus is building that primary (PR) and secondary findings (SF) from genomic research should be offered to participants under some circumstances, data describing (1) actual choices of study participants and (2) factors associated with these choices are limited, hampering study planning. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of choices made for return of PR and SF during informed consent by members of the first 247 families (790 individuals) enrolled in the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics, a genome sequencing study. Most (619; 78.3%) chose to receive SF and PR, 66 (8.4%) chose PR only, 65 (8.2%) wanted no results, and 40 (5.1%) chose SF only. Choosing SF was associated with an established clinical diagnosis in the proband (87.8 vs 79%, P=0.009) and European ancestry (EA) (87.7 vs 73%, P<0.008). Participants of non-European ancestry (NEA) were as likely as those of EA to choose SF when consented by a genetic counselor (GC) (82% NEA vs 88.3% EA, P=0.09) but significantly less likely when consented by a physician (67.4% NEA vs 85.4% EA, P=0.001). Controlling for proband diagnosis, individuals of NEA were 2.13-fold (95% CI: 1.11-4.08) more likely to choose SF when consented by a GC rather than a physician. Participants of NEA were 3-fold more likely than those of EA to decline all study results (14.7% NEA vs 5.4% EA, P<0.008). In this ethnically diverse population, whereas most participants desired PR and SF, more than 20% declined some or all results, highlighting the importance of research participant choice.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages530-537
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Journal of Human Genetics
Volume25
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

Physicians
Research
Counselors
Genomics
Informed Consent
Consensus
Cross-Sectional Studies
Genome
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Genetics
  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease. / Fiallos, Katie; Applegate, Carolyn; Mathews, Debra J.H.; Bollinger, Juli; Bergner, Amanda L.; James, Cynthia A.

In: European Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 25, No. 5, 01.05.2017, p. 530-537.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

@article{fe56dd05126a464aab926acec880c544,
title = "Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease",
abstract = "Although consensus is building that primary (PR) and secondary findings (SF) from genomic research should be offered to participants under some circumstances, data describing (1) actual choices of study participants and (2) factors associated with these choices are limited, hampering study planning. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of choices made for return of PR and SF during informed consent by members of the first 247 families (790 individuals) enrolled in the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics, a genome sequencing study. Most (619; 78.3%) chose to receive SF and PR, 66 (8.4%) chose PR only, 65 (8.2%) wanted no results, and 40 (5.1%) chose SF only. Choosing SF was associated with an established clinical diagnosis in the proband (87.8 vs 79%, P=0.009) and European ancestry (EA) (87.7 vs 73%, P<0.008). Participants of non-European ancestry (NEA) were as likely as those of EA to choose SF when consented by a genetic counselor (GC) (82% NEA vs 88.3% EA, P=0.09) but significantly less likely when consented by a physician (67.4% NEA vs 85.4% EA, P=0.001). Controlling for proband diagnosis, individuals of NEA were 2.13-fold (95% CI: 1.11-4.08) more likely to choose SF when consented by a GC rather than a physician. Participants of NEA were 3-fold more likely than those of EA to decline all study results (14.7% NEA vs 5.4% EA, P<0.008). In this ethnically diverse population, whereas most participants desired PR and SF, more than 20% declined some or all results, highlighting the importance of research participant choice.",
author = "Katie Fiallos and Carolyn Applegate and Mathews, {Debra J.H.} and Juli Bollinger and Bergner, {Amanda L.} and James, {Cynthia A.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1038/ejhg.2017.21",
volume = "25",
pages = "530--537",
journal = "European Journal of Human Genetics",
issn = "1018-4813",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease

AU - Fiallos,Katie

AU - Applegate,Carolyn

AU - Mathews,Debra J.H.

AU - Bollinger,Juli

AU - Bergner,Amanda L.

AU - James,Cynthia A.

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Although consensus is building that primary (PR) and secondary findings (SF) from genomic research should be offered to participants under some circumstances, data describing (1) actual choices of study participants and (2) factors associated with these choices are limited, hampering study planning. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of choices made for return of PR and SF during informed consent by members of the first 247 families (790 individuals) enrolled in the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics, a genome sequencing study. Most (619; 78.3%) chose to receive SF and PR, 66 (8.4%) chose PR only, 65 (8.2%) wanted no results, and 40 (5.1%) chose SF only. Choosing SF was associated with an established clinical diagnosis in the proband (87.8 vs 79%, P=0.009) and European ancestry (EA) (87.7 vs 73%, P<0.008). Participants of non-European ancestry (NEA) were as likely as those of EA to choose SF when consented by a genetic counselor (GC) (82% NEA vs 88.3% EA, P=0.09) but significantly less likely when consented by a physician (67.4% NEA vs 85.4% EA, P=0.001). Controlling for proband diagnosis, individuals of NEA were 2.13-fold (95% CI: 1.11-4.08) more likely to choose SF when consented by a GC rather than a physician. Participants of NEA were 3-fold more likely than those of EA to decline all study results (14.7% NEA vs 5.4% EA, P<0.008). In this ethnically diverse population, whereas most participants desired PR and SF, more than 20% declined some or all results, highlighting the importance of research participant choice.

AB - Although consensus is building that primary (PR) and secondary findings (SF) from genomic research should be offered to participants under some circumstances, data describing (1) actual choices of study participants and (2) factors associated with these choices are limited, hampering study planning. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of choices made for return of PR and SF during informed consent by members of the first 247 families (790 individuals) enrolled in the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics, a genome sequencing study. Most (619; 78.3%) chose to receive SF and PR, 66 (8.4%) chose PR only, 65 (8.2%) wanted no results, and 40 (5.1%) chose SF only. Choosing SF was associated with an established clinical diagnosis in the proband (87.8 vs 79%, P=0.009) and European ancestry (EA) (87.7 vs 73%, P<0.008). Participants of non-European ancestry (NEA) were as likely as those of EA to choose SF when consented by a genetic counselor (GC) (82% NEA vs 88.3% EA, P=0.09) but significantly less likely when consented by a physician (67.4% NEA vs 85.4% EA, P=0.001). Controlling for proband diagnosis, individuals of NEA were 2.13-fold (95% CI: 1.11-4.08) more likely to choose SF when consented by a GC rather than a physician. Participants of NEA were 3-fold more likely than those of EA to decline all study results (14.7% NEA vs 5.4% EA, P<0.008). In this ethnically diverse population, whereas most participants desired PR and SF, more than 20% declined some or all results, highlighting the importance of research participant choice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014717309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014717309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ejhg.2017.21

DO - 10.1038/ejhg.2017.21

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 530

EP - 537

JO - European Journal of Human Genetics

T2 - European Journal of Human Genetics

JF - European Journal of Human Genetics

SN - 1018-4813

IS - 5

ER -