Doherty, JLOwen, MJGenomic insights into the overlap between psychiatric disorders: implications for research and clinical practice. Genome Med 2014; 6:29 10.1186/gm546.
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.
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. Appelbaum, PSParens, EWaldman, CRKlitzman, RFyer, AMartinez, J et al. Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. Hastings Cent Rep 2014; 44:22–32http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hast.328.
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.
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. 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.
O’Daniel, JHaga, SBPublic perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results. Public Health Genomics 2011; 14:346–55 10.1159/000324933.
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.
Viberg, JSegerdahl, PLangenskiöld, SHansson, MGFreedom of choice about incidental findings can frustrate participants’ true preferences. Bioethics 2015; 203–9 10.1111/bioe.12160.
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; 1–16http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0095-6.
Harris, JScientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics 2005; 31:242–8 10.1136/jme.2005.011973.
Hoeyer, KInformed consent: the making of a ubiquitous rule in medical practice. Organization 2009; 16:267–88 10.1177/1350508408100478.
Wadmann, SInformeret samtykke i kliniske forsøg: teknikaliteter, tillid og tætte relationer. Etikk Praksis Nord J Appl Ethics 2013; 7:31–46.
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.
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.
Hoeyer, KLSize matters : the ethical, legal and social issues surrounding large-scale genetic biobank initiatives. Nor Epidemiol 2012; 21:211–20.
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.
Kaye, JKanellopoulou, NHawkins, NGowans, HCurren, LMelham, KCan I access my personal genome? The current legal position in the UK. Med Law Rev 2014; 22:64–86http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwt027.
Solberg, BSteinsbekk, KSManaging incidental findings in population based biobank research. J Epidemiol 2012; 21:195–2022012:195–202..
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.
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; 95:77–84http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.06.004.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. Middleton, ABragin, EParker, MFinding people who will tell you their thoughts on genomics—recruitment strategies for social sciences research. J Community Genet 2014; 291–302http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12687-014-0184-2.
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.
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.
SAS Institute Inc. SAS® 9.4. 100 SAS Campus Drive Cary, NC 27513-2414, USA: Cary, USA.
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.
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.
Frippiat, DMarquis, NWiles-Portier, EWeb surveys in the social sciences: an overview. Popul Engl Ed 2002; 65:285–3112002–2010.
Barratt, MJFerris, JAHidden Populations, Lenton S.Online purposive sampling, and external validity: taking off the blindfold. Field methods 2015; 27:3–21 10.1177/1525822X14526838.
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.