Impact of Next Generation Sequencing on the Organization and Funding of Returning Research Results: Survey of Canadian Research Ethics Boards Members

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

Patients' Attitudes Towards the Return of Incidental Findings After Research with Residual Tissue: A Mixed Methods Study

AIMS

To investigate the attitudes of patients toward the return of individual research results from scientific research with residual tissue.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We recruited 1319 patients from 6 Dutch hospitals. In total, 673 patients (51% response rate) completed the questionnaire and 146 were interviewed. Based on the questionnaire data, the majority of respondents (92%) wanted to be informed of incidental findings about both a curable (92%) and an incurable (76%) disease. Respondents' wishes to be informed about incidental findings did not vary significantly as a function of patient demographics or type of disease. The interview data show that respondents wished to be informed about incidental findings because they considered it to be normal practice; they expected the information to be of benefit for their health. Information should be provided by their physician. Yet, most respondents (84%) would consent to research even if they would not be informed about incidental findings, primarily because they recognized that there might be practical problems in providing such information, and because they valued scientific research highly.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that, while the majority of patients want to be informed about incidental findings, they also recognize that this may be difficult.

Considering the Benefits and Risks of Research Participants' Access to Sequence Data

The use of sequencing technologies has greatly expanded in both research and clinical settings. The generation of voluminous datasets has raised several issues regarding data sharing and access. Current regulations require clinical laboratories and some research laboratories to provide access to test data, including sequencing data, directly to patients upon request. There is some controversy over whether this access right may be somewhat broader, encompassing research data as well-a question beyond the scope of this article. It is clear that in the research setting, deposition of sequencing data into public or private databases often occurs, although little information exists about the return of data files to research participants (in contrast to the extensive deliberations regarding return of results). Thus, further consideration of the issue of access to data files is warranted as well as more effort to understand both patients' and research participants' use of the data.