Search

Whether and how to return individual genetic results to study participants is among the most contentious policy issues in contemporary genomic research.We surveyed corresponding authors of genome-wide association studies, identified through the National Human Genome Research Institute's Catalog of Published Genome-Wide Association Studies, to describe the experiences and attitudes of these stakeholders.Of 357 corresponding authors, 200 (56%) responded. One hundred twenty-six (63%) had been responsible for primary data and sample collection, whereas 74 (37%) had performed secondary analyses. Only 7 (4%) had returned individual results within their index genome-wide association studies. Most (69%) believed that return of results to individual participants was warranted under at least some circumstances. Most respondents identified a desire to benefit participants' health (63%) and respect for participants' desire for information (57%) as major motivations for returning results. Most also identified uncertain clinical utility (76%), the possibility that participants will misunderstand results (74%), the potential for emotional harm (61%), the need to ensure access to trained clinicians (59%), and the potential for loss of confidentiality (51%) as major barriers to return of results.Investigators have limited experience returning individual results from genome-scale research, yet most are motivated to do so in at least some circumstances.

Aim: The return of individual genetic research results has been identified as one of the most pressing ethical challenges warranting immediate policy attention. We explored the practices and perspectives of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) investigators on this topic. Materials & methods: Corresponding authors of published GWAS were invited to participate in a semistructured interview. Interviews (n = 35) were transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results: Most investigators had not returned GWAS results. Several had experience returning results in the context of linkage/family studies, and many felt that it will become a larger issue in whole-genome/-exome sequencing. Conclusions: Research context and nature of the study are important considerations in the decision to return results. More nuanced ethical guidelines should take these contextual factors into account.

Heart rate and skin conductance were measured for 83 college students (20 male nail biters, 19 male non-nail biters, 22 female nail biters, and 22 female non-nail biters) during baseline, task, and 3 stressors. Psychodiagnostic measures included the Beck Depression Inventory and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. A significant nail-biting status x sex interaction was found in skin conductance reactivity (task minus baseline) for all tasks. Male nail biters were significantly more reactive than the other 3 groups. There was no significant difference in heart rate reactivity in any of the tasks. None of the psychodiagnostic measures differentiated among any of the subgroups. Nail biting, for males, is associated with psychophysiological changes during stress, although the implication of this relationship remains to be clarified.

Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness of a standardised behavioural medicine group intervention when implemented by different group leaders in 7 geographically diverse healthcare organisations (HCOs). Design: This study used longitudinal data collected for quality assurance purposes. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires measuring presenting problems (Initial Health Status questionnaire), health and functional status [Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36)], and physical [Medical Symptom Check List (MSCL)] and psychological distress [Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)]. Intervention: The Personal Health Improvement Program™ (PHIP) designed to treat somatising high utilisers of general medical services. Participants: Patients enrolled in PHIP courses at 7 different HCOs. Complete data were collected from 1194 patients before the course, 787 immediately after the course and 467 at a 6-month follow-up. 39% of patients who finished the course completed questionnaires at all 3 time-points (times 1, 2 and 3, respectively). Of the 467 patients who provided data at all points, complete information was obtained for 356 patients (the study sample). Main outcome measures and results: Patients’ symptoms of anxiety, depression, hostility and somatisation, as well as overall psychological distress improved (p ≤ 0.001) after the course and at follow-up as determined by repeated measures by group analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results were similar for health status (SF-36), with significant improvements in all of the functional health measures between time 1 and time 3. The majority of participants completing the PHIP reported long term reductions in patterns of distress commonly associated with high levels of medical utilisation. Participants also reported improvements in functional status. In addition, the value of the programme was highly rated by participants. Conclusions: Despite the lack of a control group, the consistency of these findings across the sites are likely to be due to the clinical effectiveness of the course content. The PHIP is an effective and standardised programme, which can be taught to leaders in a short period of time and implemented across very different sites to different populations.