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

View online source

Authors:

Klitzman, R.

Appelbaum, P. S.

Chung, W.

Year:

2013

JAMA

Description

Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) Consortium. Grant number(s): R01 HG006600, R21 HG006596, P20 HG005535-02

Return to Search Results

Related Publications

ACMG SF v3.2 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)
Journal Article

ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)
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

Genome sequencing—Do you know what you are getting into?
Journal Article

Buying my existence. Just $49, free shipping included
Journal Article

The potential role of nudging in expanded noninvasive prenatal testing
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

Ready or not, genomic screening of fetuses is already here
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

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

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?

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

Authors:

Year:

Description

Share

Related Publications

Newsletter