Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery

  • Anna Sundby (a1) (a2), Merete Watt Boolsen (a3), Kristoffer Sølvsten Burgdorf (a4), Henrik Ullum (a4), Thomas Folkmann Hansen (a2) (a5) (a6), Anna Middleton (a7) and Ole Mors (a2) (a5)...

Abstract

Background:

Genomic sequencing plays an increasing role in genetic research, also in psychiatry. This raises challenges concerning the validity and type of the informed consent and the return of incidental findings. However, no solution currently exists on the best way to obtain the informed consent and deliver findings to research subjects.

Aims:

This study aims to explore the attitudes among potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research toward the consenting procedure and the delivery of incidental findings.

Methods:

We developed a cross-sectional web-based survey among five groups of stakeholders. A total of 2637 stakeholders responded: 241 persons with a mental disorder, 671 relatives, 1623 blood donors, 74 psychiatrists, and 28 clinical geneticists.

Results:

The stakeholders wanted active involvement as 92.7% preferred a specific consent and 85.1% wanted to receive information through a dynamic consent procedure. The majority of stakeholders preferred to receive genomic information related to serious or life-threatening health conditions through direct contact (69.5%) with a health professional, i.e. face-to-face consultation or telephone consultation (82.4%). Persons with mental disorders and relatives did not differ in their attitudes from the other stakeholder groups.

Conclusion:

The findings illustrate that the stakeholders want to be more actively involved and consider consent as a reciprocal transaction between the involved subjects and the researchers in the project. The results highlight the importance of collaboration between researchers and clinical geneticists as the latter are trained, through their education and clinical experience, to return and explain genomic data to patients, relatives, and research subjects.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author at: Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail address: anna.sundby@ifs.ku.dk

References

Hide All
[1]Doherty, JLOwen, MJGenomic insights into the overlap between psychiatric disorders: implications for research and clinical practice. Genome Med 2014; 6:29 10.1186/gm546.
[2]McGuffin, PSouthwick, LFifty years of the double helix and its impact on psychiatry. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2003; 37:657–61 10.1111/j.1440-1614.2003.01266.x.
[3]Kavanagh, DHTansey, KEO’Donovan, MCOwen, MJSchizophrenia genetics: emerging themes for a complex disorder. Mol Psychiatry 2015; 20:72–6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mp.2014.148.
[4]Hoop, JGEthical considerations in psychiatric genetics. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2008; 16:322–38 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10673220802576859.
[5]Pedersen, CBBybjerg-Grauholm, JPedersen, MGGrove, JAgerbo, EBækvad-Hansen, M et al. The iPSYCH2012 case-cohort sample: new directions for unravelling genetic and environmental architectures of severe mental disorders. Mol Psychiatry 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mp.2017.196.
[6]Appelbaum, PSParens, EWaldman, CRKlitzman, RFyer, AMartinez, J et al. Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. Hastings Cent Rep 2014; 44:2232http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hast.328.
[7]Ebbesen, MSundby, APedersen, FSAndersen, SA philosophical analysis of informed consent for whole genome sequencing in biobank research by use of Beauchamp and Childress’ four principles of biomedical ethics. J Clin Res Bioeth 2015; 06 10.4172/2155-9627.1000244.
[8]Parens, EAppelbaum, PChung, WIncidental Findings in the Era of Whole Genome Sequencing?. Hast Cent Rep 2013; 43:16–9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hast.189.
[9]Kaye, JWhitley, EALund, DMorrison, MTeare, HMelham, KDynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet 2015; 23:141–6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.71.
[10]Knoppers, BMJoly, YSimard, JDurocher, FThe emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet 2006; 14:1170–8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201690.
[11]McGuire, ALLupski, JRPersonal genome research: what should the participant be told?. Trends Genet 2010; 26:199201http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.12.007.
[12]O’Daniel, JHaga, SBPublic perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results. Public Health Genomics 2011; 14:346–55 10.1159/000324933.
[13]Steinsbekk, KSKåre Myskja, BSolberg, BBroad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem?. Eur J Hum Genet 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.282.
[14]Viberg, JSegerdahl, PLangenskiöld, SHansson, MGFreedom of choice about incidental findings can frustrate participants’ true preferences. Bioethics 2015; 203–9 10.1111/bioe.12160.
[15]Ryan, KADe Vries, RGUhlmann, WRRoberts, JSGornick, MCPublic’s views toward return of secondary results in genomic sequencing: it’s (Almost) all about the choice. J Genet Couns 2017; 116http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0095-6.
[16]Harris, JScientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics 2005; 31:242–8 10.1136/jme.2005.011973.
[17]World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects – WMA – The World Medical Association n.d. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/.
[18]Hoeyer, KInformed consent: the making of a ubiquitous rule in medical practice. Organization 2009; 16:267–88 10.1177/1350508408100478.
[19]Wadmann, SInformeret samtykke i kliniske forsøg: teknikaliteter, tillid og tætte relationer. Etikk Praksis Nord J Appl Ethics 2013; 7:3146.
[20]Budin-Ljøsne, ITeare, HJAKaye, JBeck, SBentzen, HBCaenazzo, L et al. Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med Ethics 2017; 18: 10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9.
[21]Hoeyer, KThe ethics of research biobanking: a critical review of the literature. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 2008; 25:429–52 10.5661/bger-25-429.
[22]Hoeyer, KLSize matters : the ethical, legal and social issues surrounding large-scale genetic biobank initiatives. Nor Epidemiol 2012; 21:211–20.
[23]Bunnik, EMde Jong, ANijsingh, Nde Wert, GMWRThe new genetics and informed consent: differentiating choice to preserve autonomy: the new genetics and informed consent: differentiating choice to preserve autonomy. Bioethics 2013; 27:348–55 10.1111/bioe.12030.
[24]Kaye, JKanellopoulou, NHawkins, NGowans, HCurren, LMelham, KCan I access my personal genome? The current legal position in the UK. Med Law Rev 2014; 22:6486http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwt027.
[25]Solberg, BSteinsbekk, KSManaging incidental findings in population based biobank research. J Epidemiol 2012; 21:1952022012:195–202..
[26]Bui, ETAnderson, NKKassem, LMcMahon, FJDo participants in genome sequencing studies of psychiatric disorders wish to Be informed of their results? A survey study. PLoS One 2014; 9: e101111 10.1371/journal.pone.0101111.
[27]Yu J-H, Harrell T.M.Jamal, SMTabor, HKBamshad, MJAttitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2014; 95:7784http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.06.004.
[28]Middleton, AWright, CFMorley, KIBragin, EFirth, HVHurles, ME et al. Potential research participants support the return of raw sequence data. J Med Genet 2015; 52:571–4 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103119.
[29]Middleton, AMorley, KIBragin, EFirth, HVHurles, MEWright, CF et al. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet 2016; 24:21–9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.58.
[30]Sundby, ABoolsen, MWBurgdorf, KSUllum, HHansen, TFMiddleton, A et al. Stakeholders in psychiatry and their attitudes toward receiving pertinent and incident findings in genomic research. Am J Med Genet A 2017; 173:2649–58 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.38380.
[31]Klitzman, RAppelbaum, PSFyer, AMartinez, JBuquez, BWynn, J et al. Researchers’ views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings. Genet Med 2013; 15:888–95 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.87.
[32]Middleton, ABragin, EMorley, KIParker, MOnline questionnaire development: using film to engage participants and then gather attitudes towards the sharing of genomic data. Soc Sci Res 2013; 211–23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.12.004.
[33]Middleton, ABragin, EParker, MFinding people who will tell you their thoughts on genomics—recruitment strategies for social sciences research. J Community Genet 2014; 291302http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12687-014-0184-2.
[34]Sundby, ABoolsen, MWBurgdorf, KSUllum, HHansen, TFMors, OAttitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research. Hum Genomics 2018; 12: 10.1186/s40246-018-0144-8.
[35]The Danish Blood Donor Study The danish blood donor study 2016 http://www.dbds.dk/defaultUK.htm.
[36]Pedersen, OBErikstrup, CKotzé, SRSørensen, EPetersen, MSGrau, K et al. The Danish Blood Donor Study: a large, prospective cohort and biobank for medical research. Vox Sang 2012; 102: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2011.01553.x 271–271.
[37]SAS Institute Inc. SAS® 9.4. 100 SAS Campus Drive Cary, NC 27513-2414, USA: Cary, USA.
[38]Det Danske Bloddonorstudie. Samtykkeerklæring for projektet: Det danske bloddonorstudie. [Informed consent for the project: The Danish Blood Donor Study] 2010. http://www.dbds.dk/samtykkeerkl%C3%A6ring.htm.
[39]Hoeyer, KScience is really needed—that’s all I know’’: informed consent and the non-verbal practices of collecting blood for genetic research in northern Sweden. New Genet Soc 2003; 22:229–44 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1463677032000147199.
[40]Jørgensen, RMunk-Jørgensen, PLysaker, PHBuck, KDHansson, LZoffmann, VOvercoming recruitment barriers revealed high readiness to participate and low dropout rate among people with schizophrenia in a randomized controlled trial testing the effect of a Guided Self-Determination intervention. BMC Psychiatry 2014; 14: 10.1186/1471-244X-14-28.
[41]Frippiat, DMarquis, NWiles-Portier, EWeb surveys in the social sciences: an overview. Popul Engl Ed 2002; 65:2853112002–2010.
[42]Barratt, MJFerris, JAHidden Populations, Lenton S.Online purposive sampling, and external validity: taking off the blindfold. Field methods 2015; 27:321 10.1177/1525822X14526838.
[43]Heaton, TJChico, VAttitudes towards the sharing of genetic information with at-risk relatives: results of a quantitative survey. Hum Genet 2016; 135:109120http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00439-015-1612-z.
[44]Sundhedsdatastyrelsen [The danish health data authority]. Arbejdsstyrken af sundhedsuddannede 2016 http://esundhed.dk/sundhedsaktivitet/arbejdsmarked/arbejdsstyrke/Sider/Arbejdsstyrken-af-sundhedsuddannede.aspx.
[45]Galea, STracy, MParticipation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol 2007; 17:643–53 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.013.
[46]Persky, SKaphingst, KACondit, CMMcBride, CMAssessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review. Genet Med 2007; 9:727–38 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e318159a344.

Keywords

The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery

  • Anna Sundby (a1) (a2), Merete Watt Boolsen (a3), Kristoffer Sølvsten Burgdorf (a4), Henrik Ullum (a4), Thomas Folkmann Hansen (a2) (a5) (a6), Anna Middleton (a7) and Ole Mors (a2) (a5)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery

  • Anna Sundby (a1) (a2), Merete Watt Boolsen (a3), Kristoffer Sølvsten Burgdorf (a4), Henrik Ullum (a4), Thomas Folkmann Hansen (a2) (a5) (a6), Anna Middleton (a7) and Ole Mors (a2) (a5)...
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *