Discordance in selected designee for return of genomic findings in the event of participant death and estate executor

View online source

Authors:

Goodman, Jessie L.

Amendola, Laura M.

Horike-Pyne, Martha

Trinidad, Susan B.

Fullerton, Stephanie M.

Burke, Wylie

Jarvik, Gail P.

Year:

2017

Mol Genet Genomic Med

Return to Search Results

Related Publications

Journal Article

To disclose or not to disclose: Secondary findings of XXY chromosomes
Journal Article

When to disclose a borderline incidental finding
Journal Article

The importance of defining actionability as related to disclosure of secondary findings identified in research
Journal Article

Clarifying the blurry boundaries between research and clinical care
Journal Article

Respecting autonomy and balancing benefits by disclosing the secondary finding of Klinefelter’s
Journal Article

Introduction: Return of research results: What about the family?
Journal Article

Returning pleiotropic results from genetic testing to patients and research participants
Journal Article

Return of secondary genomic findings vs patient autonomy: Implications for medical care
Journal Article

When "actionable" genomic sequencing results cannot be acted upon
Journal Article

Respecting the value-laden nature of participant preferences: AI, digital phenotyping, and psychiatry
Journal Article

Incorporating research burden and utility considerations as limiting factors in a framework for returning IRR
Journal Article

Navigating the ethical maze in digital health research
Journal Article

Personalized roadmaps for returning results from digital phenotyping
Journal Article

Psychiatry, ethics, and digital phenotyping: Moral challenges and considerations for returning mental health research results to college students
Journal Article

Contending with real and perceived intrusiveness in digital phenotyping research
Journal Article

Potential iatrogenic effects of returning individual research results from digital phenotyping in psychiatry
Journal Article

Developing a process for returning medically actionable genomic variants to Latino patients in a federally-qualified health center
Journal Article

Should researchers offer results to family members of cancer biobank participants? A mixed-methods study of proband and family preferences
Journal Article

Development and validation of a comprehensive genomics knowledge scale
Journal Article

Use of metaphors about exome and whole genome sequencing
Journal Article

"Is that something that should concern me?": A qualitative exploration of parent understanding of their child's genomic test results
Journal Article

Attitudes toward return of genetic research results to relatives, including after death: Comparison of cancer probands, blood relatives, and spouse/partners.
Journal Article

Researchers’ perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: A qualitative study
Journal Article

Select ethical aspects of next-generation sequencing tests for newborn screening and diagnostic evaluation of critically ill newborns
Journal Article

Role of parenting relationship quality in communicating about maternal BRCA1/2 genetic test results with children
Journal Article

Neutral, negative, or negligible? Changes in patient perceptions of disease risk following receipt of a negative genomic screening result
Journal Article

Effects of health literacy skills, educational attainment, and level of melanoma risk on responses to personalized genomic testing
Journal Article

Return of research results from pharmacogenomic versus disease susceptibility studies: What's drugs got to do with it?
Journal Article

Parental interest in genomic sequencing of newborns: Enrollment experience from the BabySeq Project
Journal Article

Patient reactions to receiving negative genomic screening results by mail

Discordance in selected designee for return of genomic findings in the event of participant death and estate executor

Authors:

Year:

Share

Related Publications

Newsletter