An implementation framework for the feedback of individual research results and incidental findings in research

BMC Medical Ethics

Ayat Salman⁴  Anthoula Lazaris⁴  Peter Metrakos⁴  Tommy Nilsson¹  Bartha Maria Knoppers²  Yann Joly²  Adrian Thorogood³ 

[1] Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada;Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada;Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, 740, avenue Dr. Penfield, suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada;General Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada

关键词: Double coding;    Participant feedback;    Individual research results;    Incidental findings;    Research ethics;    Genomics;    Genetics;   

Others  :  1122050
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-15-88

 received in 2014-03-06, accepted in 2014-12-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

This article outlines procedures for the feedback of individual research data to participants. This feedback framework was developed in the context of a personalized medicine research project in Canada. Researchers in this domain have an ethical obligation to return individual research results and/or material incidental findings that are clinically significant, valid and actionable to participants. Communication of individual research data must proceed in an ethical and efficient manner. Feedback involves three procedural steps: assessing the health relevance of a finding, re-identifying the affected participant, and communicating the finding. Re-identification requires researchers to break the code in place to protect participant identities. Coding systems replace personal identifiers with a numerical code. Double coding systems provide added privacy protection by separating research data from personal identifying data with a third “linkage” database. A trusted and independent intermediary, the “keyholder”, controls access to this linkage database.

Discussion

Procedural guidelines for the return of individual research results and incidental findings are lacking. This article outlines a procedural framework for the three steps of feedback: assessment, re-identification, and communication. This framework clarifies the roles of the researcher, Research Ethics Board, and keyholder in the process. The framework also addresses challenges posed by coding systems. Breaking the code involves privacy risks and should only be carried out in clearly defined circumstances. Where a double coding system is used, the keyholder plays an important role in balancing the benefits of individual feedback with the privacy risks of re-identification.

Summary

Feedback policies should explicitly outline procedures for the assessment of findings, and the re-identification and contact of participants. The responsibilities of researchers, the Research Ethics Board, and the keyholder must be clearly defined. We provide general guidelines for keyholders involved in feedback. We also recommend that Research Ethics Boards should not be directly involved in the assessment of individual findings. Hospitals should instead establish formal, interdisciplinary clinical advisory committees to help researchers determine whether or not an uncertain finding should be returned.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Thorogood et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E, Parker M, van Delden JJ: Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet 2011, 27(2):41-47.
• [2]Wolf SM: Return of individual research results & incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2013, 14(1):557-577.
• [3]Bledsoe MJ, Grizzle WE, Clark BJ, Zeps N: Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results. Genet Med 2012, 14(4):478-483.
• [4]Lévesque E, Joly Y, Simard J: Return of research results: general principles and international perspectives. J Law Med Ethics 2011, 39(4):583-592.
• [5]Knoppers BM, Deschênes M, Ma’n HZ, Tassé AM: Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings policy statement. Eur J Hum Genet 2012, 21(3):245-247.
• [6]Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B, Lawrenz F, Kahn JP, Beskow LM: Managing incidental findings & research results in genomic research involving biobanks & archived datasets. Genet Med 2012, 14:361-384.
• [7]Network of Applied Genetic Medicine of Québec: Statement of Principles on the Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings. Montréal, Québec; 2013.
• [8]National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance Vol 1. Rockville, Maryland; 1999.
• [9]Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR, Puggal M, Beskow LM, Biesecker LG, Burke GL: Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants updated guidelines from a national heart, lung, and blood institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2010, 3(6):574-580.
• [10]Canadian College of Medical Geneticists & Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors: Joint statement on the process of informed consent for genetic research. 2008.
• [11]Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, Kahn JP, Cho MK, Clayton EW, Wilfond BS: Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36(2):219-248.
• [12]Zawati MH, Parry D, Thorogood A, Nguyen MT, Boycott KM, Rosenblatt D, Knoppers BM: Reporting results from whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing in clinical practice: a proposal for Canada? J Med Genet 2013, 51(1):68-70.
• [13]Beskow LM, Burke W: Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci Transl Med 2010, 2(38):38 cm20.
• [14]Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) - Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada - Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (“TCPS2”). 2010.
• [15]Fernandez CV, Skedgel C, Weijer C: Considerations and costs of disclosing study findings to research participants. CMAJ 2004, 170(9):1417-1419.
• [16]El Emam K: Pan-Canadian de-identification Guidelines for Personal Health Information. Ottawa, Ontario: CHEO Research Institute; 2007.
• [17]Knoppers BM, Saginur M: The Babel of genetic data terminology. Nat Biotech 2005, 23(8):925-927.
• [18]Pulley J, Clayton E, Bernard GR, Roden DM, Masys DR: Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt‒out, de‒identified biobank. Clin Transl Sci 2010, 3(1):42-48.
• [19]Kollek R, Petersen I: Disclosure of individual research results in clinico-genomic trials: challenges, classification and criteria for decision-making. J Med Ethics 2011, 37(5):271-275.
• [20]Keogh LA, Fisher D, Gorin SS, Schully SD, Lowery JT, Ahnen DJ, Maskiell JA, Lindor NM, Hopper JL, Burnett T, Holter S, Arnold JL, Gallinger S, Laurino M, Esplen MJ, Sinicrope PS, for the Colon Cancer Family Registry: How do researchers manage genetic results in practice? The experience of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry. J Community Genet 2014, 5(2):99-108.
• [21]van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, Hastings RJ, Fellmann F: Hodgson SV, … & de Wert, GM: Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Euro J Hum Genet 2013, 21:S1-S5.
• [22]Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP: Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 2011, 13(6):499-504.
• [23]Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics: Proposed changes to the TCPS2. 2013. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/consultation/Proposed_Changes_TCPS_2_EN.pdf webcite
• [24]President's Commission on the Study of Bioethical Issues: Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts. Washington, DC; 2013.
• [25]United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Paris; 1997.
• [26]Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S: Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science 2013, 340(6136):1049-1050.
• [27]Lawrenz F, Sobotka S: Empirical analysis of current approaches to incidental findings. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36(2):249-255.