Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
B. Chan, F. Facio, H. Eidem, S. Hull, L. Biesecker, B. Berkman (2012)
Genomic Inheritances: Disclosing Individual Research Results From Whole-Exome Sequencing to Deceased Participants’ RelativesThe American Journal of Bioethics, 12
S. Wolf, Rebecca Branum, B. Koenig, G. Petersen, S. Berry, L. Beskow, M. Daly, C. Fernandez, R. Green, B. LeRoy, N. Lindor, P. O'Rourke, C. Breitkopf, M. Rothstein, B. Ness, B. Wilfond (2015)
Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and RecommendationsThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43
S. Haga (2010)
Impact of limited population diversity of genome-wide association studiesGenetics in Medicine, 12
D. Gordon, Carmen Breitkopf, M. Robinson, W. Petersen, Jason Egginton, K. Chaffee, G. Petersen, S. Wolf, B. Koenig (2018)
Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family PreferencesAJOB Empirical Bioethics, 10
C. Breitkopf, G. Petersen, S. Wolf, K. Chaffee, M. Robinson, D. Gordon, N. Lindor, B. Koenig (2015)
Preferences regarding Return of Genomic Results to Relatives of Research Participants, Including after Participant Death: Empirical Results from a Cancer BiobankThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43
L. Furr, SUSAN Kelly (1999)
The Genetic Knowledge Index: developing a standard measure of genetic knowledge.Genetic testing, 3 2
D. Byrne, C. Gouaux, W. Griffitt, J. Lamberth, N. Murakawa, M. Prasad, A. Prasad, M. Ramirez (1971)
The Ubiquitous Relationship: Attitude Similarity and AttractionHuman Relations, 24
A. Tassé (2011)
The Return of Results of Deceased Research ParticipantsThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39
Sarah Knerr, Dawn Wayman, V. Bonham (2011)
Inclusion of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Genetic Research: Advance the Spirit by Changing the Rules?The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39
Du Feng, Laura Baker (1994)
Spouse similarity in attitudes, personality, and psychological well-beingBehavior Genetics, 24
Yes (private, employer, public)
M. Grajower (1983)
Familial pancreatic cancer.Annals of internal medicine, 98 1
B. Knoppers, M. Deschenes, M. Zawati, A. Tassé (2012)
Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings Policy StatementEuropean Journal of Human Genetics, 21
K. Quaid, Nenette Jessup, E. Meslin (2004)
Disclosure of genetic information obtained through research.Genetic testing, 8 3
S. Wolf, Brittney Crock, B. Ness, F. Lawrenz, J. Kahn, L. Beskow, M. Cho, M. Christman, R. Green, Ralph Hall, J. Illes, Moira Keane, B. Knoppers, B. Koenig, I. Kohane, B. LeRoy, K. Maschke, William McGeveran, P. Ossorio, L. Parker, G. Petersen, H. Richardson, Joan Scott, S. Terry, B. Wilfond, Wendy Wolf (2012)
Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data setsGenetics in Medicine, 14
D. McHugh, C. Cameron, J. Abdenur, M. Abdulrahman, O. Adair, S. Nuaimi, H. Ahlman, J. Allen, I. Antonozzi, S. Archer, S. Au, C. Auray-Blais, M. Baker, F. Bamforth, K. Beckmann, G. Pino, S. Berberich, R. Binard, F. Boemer (2011)
Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics
J. Baron (2023)
Thinking and Deciding
D. Shalowitz, E. Garrett-Mayer, D. Wendler (2006)
The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review.Archives of internal medicine, 166 5
M. Bak, M. Ploem, Hakan Ateşyürek, M. Blom, H. Tan, D. Willems (2019)
Stakeholders’ perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic reviewEuropean Journal of Human Genetics, 28
E. Singer, T. Antonucci, John Hoewyk (2004)
Racial and ethnic variations in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing.Genetic testing, 8 1
M. Young (2013)
The responses of research participants and their next of kin to receiving feedback of genetic test results following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer StudyGenetics in Medicine, 15
S. Wolf, F. Lawrenz, Charles Nelson, J. Kahn, M. Cho, E. Clayton, J. Fletcher, M. Georgieff, D. Hammerschmidt, K. Hudson, J. Illes, V. Kapur, Moira Keane, B. Koenig, B. LeRoy, E. McFarland, J. Paradise, L. Parker, S. Terry, B. Ness, B. Wilfond (2008)
Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and RecommendationsThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 36
Lauren Milner, E. Liu, N. Garrison (2013)
Relationships Matter: Ethical Considerations for Returning Results to Family Members of Deceased SubjectsThe American Journal of Bioethics, 13
L. Brown, T. Cai, A. Dasgupta (2001)
Interval Estimation for a Binomial ProportionStatistical Science, 16
L. Black, K. McClellan (2011)
Familial Communication of Research Results: A Need to Know?The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39
A. Need, D. Goldstein (2009)
Next generation disparities in human genomics: concerns and remedies.Trends in genetics : TIG, 25 11
A. Bredenoord, H. Kroes, E. Cuppen, M. Parker, J. Delden (2011)
Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered.Trends in genetics : TIG, 27 2
J. Martínez-Useros, J. García-Foncillas (2016)
The Role of BRCA2 Mutation Status as Diagnostic, Predictive, and Prognosis Biomarker for Pancreatic CancerBioMed Research International, 2016
J. Baron (2008)
Thinking and deciding, 4th ed.
Susan Wolf, Emily Scholtes, Barbara Koenig, Gloria Petersen, Susan Berry, L. Beskow, M. Daly, Conrad Fernandez, Robert Green, Bonnie LeRoy, N. Lindor, P. O’Rourke, C. Breitkopf, Mark Rothstein, Brian, Van Ness, B. Wilfond (2018)
Pragmatic Tools for Sharing Genomic Research Results with the Relatives of Living and Deceased Research ParticipantsThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 46
Genetic research generates results with implications for relatives. Recommendations addressing relatives’ access to a participant’s genetic research findings include eliciting participant preferences about access and choosing a representative to make decisions about access upon participant incapacity/death. Representatives are likely to be blood relatives or spouse/partners (who may share genetically related children). This raises the question of whether relatives hold similar attitudes about access or divergent attitudes that may yield conflict. We surveyed pancreatic cancer biobank participants (probands) and relatives in a family registry (blood relatives and spouse/partners of probands); 1,903 (>55%) surveys were returned. Results revealed few attitudinal differences between the groups. A slightly higher proportion of blood relatives agreed with statements reflecting proband privacy. In conclusion, probands’ decisions on access are likely to be accepted by relatives; in choosing a representative, probands may not face major differences in attitudes about privacy/sharing between a blood relative and a spouse/partner.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics – SAGE
Published: Jul 1, 2018
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.