Chapter Two - Stakeholder Views on Returning Research Results

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407703-4.00002-5Get rights and content

Abstract

While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the attitudes of stakeholders (research participants, policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus regarding the issue of returning research results across and within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about obligations and interest in research results, other major related issues related to returning research results, such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes and individual research results of clinical significance, we conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not require, researchers to consider these issues in the developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and budget accordingly.

Introduction

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project, vast amounts of genetic and genomic information have been produced from thousands of consenting research participants. Array-based and sequencing technologies have improved and become cheaper and easier to do, resulting in widespread use of these technologies and subsequent generation of large datasets (Mardis, 2011). Alongside advances in genome technologies, the culture and practice of clinical research has become more patient-centered (Kaye et al., 2012), and participants have become more engaged in the research enterprise (Phipps et al., 1999, Psillidis et al., 1997), playing a greater role in establishing biorepositories and collaborating with researchers (Landy et al., 2012, Terry et al., 2007). Additionally, in the clinical setting, the patient–provider relationship is facing changes with the implementation of electronic medical records and convenient patient access to their health information. With the coevolving research dynamics and changes in genomic and informational technologies, it should serve as no surprise that debates have ensued about research participants' right to access their individual data and researchers' duty to return research results. The public's interest in genetics and genomics and associated ethical, legal, and social issues further contribute to this ongoing debate, complicating development of a consensus policy. In this chapter, we will explore the views of key stakeholders (researchers, institutional review boards, and research participants) on this controversial issue and related issues such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost. This inherently complex issue will continue to pose major challenges for how best to resolve; however, it appears that a consensus is emerging between the stakeholder groups on returning some types of results and now is the time for every researcher to address this issue in their study's protocols and consent documents.

Section snippets

What is a Research Result?

For more than a decade, the issue of returning research results, particularly in genetics research, has been the topic of great debate. Before considering the issue in depth, it is important to first clarify what is meant by “return of results” (Knoppers & Dam, 2011). Returning research results can refer to at least three types of results: (1) a summary of the study's findings that does not include any personal data; (2) an individual research result for a participant that would be anticipated,

Guidelines on Returning Research Results

Several guidelines have been developed with recommended criteria for when to return research results, for any type of study, or for genetic studies specifically and reviewed in depth in several papers (Beskow et al., 2001, Bookman et al., 2006, Canadian Institute of Health Research, 2012, Cassa et al., 2012, Dressler, 2009, Knoppers et al., 2006, National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1999, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, 2004, National Human Genome Research Institute, 2010, National

Stakeholder Views

Three primary stakeholders in the debate about returning research results are researchers, institutional review boards (IRBs), and participants (or the parent/guardian of a minor). This trifecta represents those who design, carry out, and potentially will communicate research results to participants (researchers); those who govern the conduct of human subjects research (IRBs); and those who consent to participate in research and are ultimately impacted by the research results they receive

Extent and Experience with Returning Research Results

Despite current evidence that research participants would like the option of accessing research results and the growing support of researchers and IRBs, even if of little clinical utility, the practice does not appear to be very common (Table 2.1). Several reasons have been given for not returning results, including time constraints, costs, effort required to recontact participants, lack of national or institutional policies or protocols, limited access to genetic counselors or other clinical

Overall Analysis of Stakeholder Positions

Overall, the issue of returning research results pivots on the ethical and legal obligations. In support of the ethical principles of respect, autonomy, beneficence, and reciprocity, several have declared there is an ethical obligation to return results of clinical significance (Fernandez et al., 2003a, Knoppers et al., 2006, Ravitsky and Wilfond, 2006, Shalowitz and Miller, 2005). However, it is unclear if researchers have an ethical obligation to search for results for clinical significance.

Additional Points to Consider

While much of the debate in the literature has focused on understanding stakeholder perspectives, the practice of returning results is quite complex and involves careful consideration of several factors, including informed consent, communication of test result, provisions for follow-up care, and cost. This is not a complete list but includes some of the commonly debated issues related to returning results.

Moving Forward

In general, the attitudes of many researchers, IRBs, and participants appear to have converged on returning results of clinical significance. However, despite this general consensus, the actual practice appears stymied by a lack of an agreed-upon definition of “clinical significance” and uncertainty about how to actually return results. Given the extent and popularity of genetics and genomics research in the media, it seems inevitable that participants will begin to more frequently request

Acknowledgment

The authors are deeply indebted to the assistance of Ms. Rachel Mills with the preparation of this manuscript.

References (198)

  • S.D. Grosse et al.

    What is the clinical utility of genetic testing?

    Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics

    (2006)
  • S.B. Haga

    Impact of limited population diversity of genome-wide association studies

    Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics

    (2010)
  • S.B. Haga et al.

    Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research

    Advances in Genetics

    (2008)
  • G. Johnson et al.

    Do Patients Participating in genomic biobanks

    Genetics in Medicine

    (2012)
  • G. Johnson et al.

    An empirical examination of the management of return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks

    Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics

    (2012)
  • D. Kaufman et al.

    Subjects matter: A survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study

    Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics

    (2008)
  • R. Abdul-Karim et al.

    Disclosure of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing in pediatric genomic research

    Pediatrics

    (2013)
  • M. Angrist

    You never call, you never write: Why return of ‘omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative

    Personalized Medicine

    (2011)
  • K. Armstrong et al.

    Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer

    JAMA

    (2005)
  • D. Avard et al.

    Pediatric research and the return of individual research results

    The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics

    (2011)
  • M.P. Ball et al.

    A public resource facilitating clinical use of genomes

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    (2012)
  • L. Baret et al.

    Opinions and intentions of parents of an autistic child toward genetic research results: Two typical profiles

    European Journal of Human Genetics

    (2011)
  • A. Baylor et al.

    Dissemination of research findings to research participants living with HIV in rural Uganda: Challenges and rewards

    PLoS Medicine

    (2013)
  • L.M. Beskow et al.

    Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics

    JAMA

    (2001)
  • L.G. Biesecker

    The Nirvana fallacy and the return of results

    The American Journal of Bioethics

    (2013)
  • L.G. Biesecker et al.

    The ClinSeq Project: Piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine

    Genome Research

    (2009)
  • L. Black et al.

    Familial communication of research results: A need to know?

    The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics

    (2011)
  • C.S. Bloss et al.

    Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk

    The New England Journal of Medicine

    (2011)
  • Board on Life Sciences, National Research Council, Board on Health Sciences Policy, & Institute of Medicine

    Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research

    (2005)
  • E.B. Bookman et al.

    Reporting genetic results in research studies: Summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group

    American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A

    (2006)
  • B.B. Boyer et al.

    Sharing results from complex disease genetics studies: A community based participatory research approach

    International Journal of Circumpolar Health

    (2007)
  • A. Brand

    Public health and genetics—A dangerous combination?

    European Journal of Public Health

    (2005)
  • D.S. Brandt et al.

    A closer look at the recommended criteria for disclosing genetic results: Perspectives of medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers, and institutional review board chairs

    Journal of Genetic Counseling

    (2013)
  • S. Brealey et al.

    Participants' preference for type of leaflet used to feed back the results of a randomised trial: A survey

    Trials

    (2010)
  • G.R. Bunin et al.

    Informing subjects of epidemiologic study results. Children's Cancer Group

    Pediatrics

    (1996)
  • W. Burke et al.

    Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!

    Genetics in Medicine

    (2013)
  • Canadian Institute of Health Research

    Best practices for health research involving children and adolescents

    (2012)
  • C.A. Cassa et al.

    Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: Quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility

    Genome Research

    (2012)
  • T. Caulfield et al.

    Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: Consensus statement

    PLoS Biology

    (2008)
  • B. Chan et al.

    Genomic inheritances: Disclosing individual research results from whole-exome sequencing to deceased participants' relatives

    The American Journal of Bioethics

    (2012)
  • K.D. Christensen et al.

    Disclosing individual CDKN2A research results to melanoma survivors: Interest, impact, and demands on researchers

    Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

    (2011)
  • E.W. Clayton et al.

    Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research

    JAMA

    (2006)
  • G. Costain et al.

    Incomplete knowledge of the clinical context as a barrier to interpreting incidental genetic research findings

    The American Journal of Bioethics

    (2013)
  • S. Daack-Hirsch et al.

    “Information is information”: A public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing

    Clinical Genetics

    (2013)
  • H. Dalal et al.

    Communicating the results of research: How do participants of a cardiac rehabilitation RCT prefer to be informed?

    Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy

    (2010)
  • J.L. Darbyshire et al.

    Disseminating results to clinical trial participants: A qualitative review of patient understanding in a post-trial population

    BMJ Open

    (2012)
  • S. Delany-Moretlwe et al.

    Investing in the future: Lessons learnt from communicating the results of HSV/HIV intervention trials in South Africa

    Health Research Policy and Systems

    (2011)
  • N. Dickert et al.

    Ancillary care obligations of medical researchers

    JAMA

    (2009)
  • E.M. Dinnett et al.

    Unblinding of trial participants to their treatment allocation: Lessons from the Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER)

    Clinical Trials

    (2005)
  • M. Dixon-Woods et al.

    Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: Qualitative study of participants' views

    BMJ

    (2006)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text