Abstract
Although there are numerous position papers on the issues and challenges surrounding disclosure of incidental genomic findings involving children, there is very little research. To fill this gap, the purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of multiple professional (N = 103) and public (N = 63) stakeholders using both interviews and focus groups. Using qualitative analysis, we identified one overarching theme, “It's hard for us; it's hard for them,” and three subthemes/questions: “What to disclose?,” “Who gets the information?,” and “What happens later?” Perspectives differed between professional (Institutional Review Board chairs, clinicians, and researchers) and public stakeholders. While professionals focused on the complexities of what to disclose, the lay public stated that parents should have all information laid out for them. Professionals pondered multiple parent and child situations, while the public identified parents as informational gatekeepers who know their children best. Professionals described the potential requirement for follow-up over time as a logistical “nightmare,” while the public believed that parents have the responsibility for managing their children's health information over time. However, the parent role as gatekeeper was seen as time limited and in need of professional support and backup. Our findings present a case for needed dialogue around what we propose as an “ethically important moment,” with the goal of protecting and respecting the viewpoints of all stakeholders when policies regarding children are developed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ali-Kahn SE, Daar AS, Shuman C et al (2009) Whole genome scanning: resolving clinical diagnosis and management amidst complex data. Pediatr Res 66:357–363
Avard D, Senecal K, Madadi P, Sinnett D (2011) Pediatric research and the return of individual research results. J Law Med Ethics 39:593–604
Ayres L, Kavanaugh K, Knafl KA (2003) Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qual Health Res 13:871–883
Baret L, Godard B (2011) Opinions and intentions of parents of an autistic child toward genetic research results: two typical profiles. Eur J Hum Genet 19:1127–1132
Bick D, Dimmock D (2011) Whole exome and whole genome sequencing. Curr Opin Pediatr 23:594–600
Biesecker LG (2012) Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med 14:393–398
Brunham LR, Hayden MR (2012) Whole-genome sequencing: the new standard of care? Science 336:1112–1113
Bush LW, Rothenberg KH (2012) Dialogues, dilemmas, and disclosures: genomic research and incidental findings. Genet Med 14:293–295
Cho MK (2008) Understanding incidental findings I the context of genetics and genomics. J Law Med Ethics 36:280–285
Coulter A (1997) Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2:112–121
Daack-Hirsh S, Driessnack M, Hanish A, Johnson V, Simon C, Williams JK (2012) Public expectations for communicating incidental findings in genetic testing. 2012 State of the Science—Congress on Nursing Science, The Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science (CANS) Sep 13–15, 2012, Washington DC
Delbanco T, Walker J, Darer JD et al (2010) Open notes: doctors and patients signing on. Ann Intern Med 153:121–125
Downing NR, Williams JK, Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Simon CM (2013) Genetic specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting. Patient Educ Couns 90:133–138
Driessnack M, Gallo A (2011) Stop, look, and listen: revisiting the involvement of children and adolescents in genomic research. Annu Rev Nurs Res 29:133–149
Elo S, Kyngäs H (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 62:107–115
Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R et al (2012) Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 27:1361–1367
Emmanuel EJ, Emmanuel LL (1992) Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 267:2221–2226
Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR et al (2010) Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 3:574–580
Feero WG, Guttmacher AE, Collins FS (2010) Genomic medicine—an updated primer. N Engl J Med 362:2001–2011
Gallo AM, Angst D, Knafl KA, Hadley E, Smith C (2005) Parents sharing information with their children about genetic conditions. J Pediatr Health Care 19:267–275
Green ED, Guyer MS (2011) Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature 470:204–213
Guillemin M, Gillam L (2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important moments’ in research. Qual Inq 10:261–280
Hens K, Nys H, Cassiman J, Dierickx K (2011) The return of individual research findings in paediatric genetic research. J Med Ethics 37:179–183
Hudson K (2011) Genomics, health care, and society. N Engl J Med 365:1033–1041
IOM (2012) Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America. National Academies Press, Washington DC
Kohane IS (2011) No small matter: qualitatively distinct challenges of pediatric genomic studies. Genome Med 3:62
Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB (2006) The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 296:212–215
Kon AA (2010) The shared decision-making continuum. JAMA 304:903–904
Lantos JD, Artman M, Kingsmore SF (2011) Ethical considerations with clinical use of next-generation sequencing in children. J Pediatr 159:879–881
Legare F, Ratte S, Stacey D et al (2010) Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by health care professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD006732
Lemke AA, Halverson C, Ross LF (2012) Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago. Am J Med Genet A 158A:1029–1037
Manning M, Hudgins L (2010) Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Genet Med 12:742–745
Metcalfe A, Plunridge G, Coad J et al (2011) Parents' and children's communication about genetic risk. Eur J Hum Genet 19:640–664
Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S et al (2010) Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier diagnostic test for individuals with developmental delay or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 86:749–764
Pope C, Mays N (eds) (2007) Qualitative research in health care (3rd edn). Blackwell Publishing, Malden
Reiff M, Ross K, Mulchandani S, Propert KJ, Pyeritz RE, Spinner NB, Bernhardt BA (2012) Physicians' perspectives on the uncertainties and implications of chromosomal microarray testing of children and families. Clin Genet 83:23–30. doi:10.1111/cge.12004
Samual J, Knoppers BM, Avard D (2012) Paediatric biobanks: what makes them so unique? J Paediatr Child Health 48:e1–e3
Shen Y, Dies KA, Holm IA et al (2010) Clinical genetic testing for patients with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics 125:e727–e735
Simon C, Williams JK, Shinkunas L et al (2011) Informed consent and genomic incidental findings: IRB perspectives. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 6:53–67
Tercyak KP, Hensley-Alford S, Emmons KM et al (2011) Parents' attitudes toward pediatric genetic testing for common disease risk. Pediatrics 127:e1288–e1295
Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, Lohn Z, Rousseau F, Friedman JM (2012) “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 158A:2519–2525. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.35554
QSR International Pty Ltd (2008) NVivo qualitative data software (Version 8)
Wade CH, Wilfond BS, McBride CM (2010) Effects of genetic risk information on children's psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med 12:317–326
Wilfond BS, Carpenter KJ (2008) Incidental findings in pediatric research. J Law Med Ethics 36:332–340
Wilfond BS, Diekema DS (2012) Engaging children in genomics research: decoding the meaning of assent in research. Genet Med 14:437–443
Williams JK, Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M et al (2012) Researcher and institutional review board chair perspectives on incidental findings in genomic research. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 16:508–513
Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA et al (2008) Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 36:219–248
Wolf AM, Crock BN, VanNess B et al (2012) Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data. Genet Med 14:361–384
Zawati MH, Van Ness B, Knoppers BM (2011) Incidental findings in genomic research: a review of international norms. Genedit 9:1–8
Zorn TE, Roper J, Weaver CK, Rigby C (2012) Influence in science dialogue: Individual attitude changes as a result of dialogue between lay persons and scientists. Public Underst Sci 21:848–864. doi:10.1177/0963662510386292
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by an (ARRA) grant from the National Human Genome Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (RC1HG005786). The authors acknowledge the entire research team, the American College of Medical Genetics, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the International Society of Nurses in Genetics, and the Heartland Regional Genetics & Newborn Screening Collaborative for their assistance in recruitment, and the University of Northern Iowa Center for Social and Behavioral Research for collaboration on interview guide development and data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Driessnack, M., Daack-Hirsch, S., Downing, N. et al. The disclosure of incidental genomic findings: an “ethically important moment” in pediatric research and practice. J Community Genet 4, 435–444 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-013-0145-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-013-0145-1