One thing leads to another: the cascade of obligations when researchers report genetic research results to study participants

Abstract

Even as debate continues about the putative obligation to proactively report genetic research results to study participants, there is an increasing need to attend to the obligations that might cascade from any initial report. We conducted an international, quasi-experimental survey of researchers involved in autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and cystic fibrosis (CF) genetics to explore perceived obligations to ensure updated information or relevant clinical care subsequent to any initial communication of research results, and factors influencing these attitudes. 5-point Likert scales of dis/agreement were analyzed using descriptive and multivariate statistics. Of the 343 respondents (44% response rate), large majorities agreed that in general and in a variety of hypothetical research contexts, research teams that report results should ensure that participants gain subsequent access to updated information (74-83%) and implicated clinical services (79-87%). At the same time, researchers perceived barriers restricting access to relevant clinical care, though this was significantly more pronounced (Po0.001) for ASD (64%) than CF (34%). In the multivariate model, endorsement of cascading obligations was positively associated with researcher characteristics (eg, clinical role/training) and attitudes (eg, perceived initial reporting obligation), and negatively associated with the initial report of less scientifically robust hypothetical results, but unaffected by perceived or hypothetical barriers to care. These results suggest that researchers strongly endorse information and care-based obligations that cascade from the initial report of research results to study participants. In addition, they raise challenging questions about how any cascading obligations are to be met, especially where access challenges are already prevalent.

Incidental Findings from Clinical Genome‐Wide Sequencing: A Review

“…In addition, 'cascading care obligations' such as the provision of treatment may be burdensome or impossible for researchers to provide (Bookman et al 2006). Despite this, a recent survey of researchers found that most (n=290/343, 85 %) felt an obligation to ensure that participants have access to clinical services related to research findings (Miller et al 2012).…”

Not so simple: a quasi-experimental study of how researchers adjudicate genetic research results

“…Data from responses to other questions are reported elsewhere. 44,45 Both the attitude questions in the non-experimental component of the questionnaire and the professional judgments elicited in response to each vignette were measured using 5-point Likert scales from strongly agree to strongly disagree.…”

The 3-I framework: a framework for developing public policies regarding pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing in Canada

“…The lady in the court case and other people with the potential of carrying the gene for Huntington's disease have had first-hand experience with genetic discrimination (Bombard et al, 2012;Erwin et al, 2010 Jaitovich Groisman et al, 2014;Kerath et al, 2013;Ormond and Cho, 2014;Rothstein and Epps, 2001). Participation in a trial where PGx information is collected may lead to finding out that the individual is likely to develop a particular disease or not respond to therapy which in turn may not only have a negative emotional effect on the person's well-being, but may also may oblige the clinician to treat participants differently and provide care not provided to nonparticipants (Hayeems et al, 2013;Miller et al, 2012). The issue of informed consent as it relates to requesting children's genetic tests is also a concern.…”