Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Genet Med ; 26(10): 101210, 2024 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39001707

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Fueled by direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing and genetic-relative finder services, some participants in genetic genealogy databases are making "not parent expected" (NPE) discoveries. To better understand experiences of this phenomenon, we surveyed a large cohort of users of genetic relative finder (GRF) services concerning their experiences after an NPE discovery. METHODS: Using thematic analysis, we analyzed responses from a cohort of GRF users (n = 646) to open-ended survey items to understand these experiences and their recommendations for DTC genetic testing companies and other GRF users. RESULTS: We found that individuals had both positive and negative emotional experiences related to the NPE discovery. Positive aspects included deeper self-understanding, connecting with new family members, and uncovering answers to questions. Negative aspects included rejection by new genetic relatives, inability to seek answers from relatives who had already died, and impairment of family relationships, especially with mothers. For many participants, the challenges after the discovery nevertheless felt worthwhile because the truth was uncovered. Perhaps notably, some participants suggested enhanced warnings prediscovery and improved support after discovery from companies who provide DTC genetic testing services. CONCLUSION: GRF services are powerful tools for family research and genealogy. Despite some possible positive and worthwhile experiences arising from making an NPE discovery, GRF users risk dealing with this potentially life-altering experience without adequate support. Participants in this study recommended an increase in resources from DTC genetic testing companies that could help users anticipate and navigate an NPE discovery.


Assuntos
Bases de Dados Genéticas , Triagem e Testes Direto ao Consumidor , Testes Genéticos , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Triagem e Testes Direto ao Consumidor/psicologia , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inquéritos e Questionários , Família/psicologia , Linhagem , Pais/psicologia , Idoso
2.
Patient ; 17(2): 109-120, 2024 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38363501

RESUMO

Discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are a frequently used method to explore the preferences of patients and other decision-makers in health. Pretesting is an essential stage in the design of a high-quality choice experiment and involves engaging with representatives of the target population to improve the readability, presentation, and structure of the preference instrument. The goal of pretesting in DCEs is to improve the validity, reliability, and relevance of the survey, while decreasing sources of bias, burden, and error associated with preference elicitation, data collection, and interpretation of the data. Despite its value to inform DCE design, pretesting lacks documented good practices or clearly reported applied examples. The purpose of this paper is: (1) to define pretesting and describe the pretesting process specifically in the context of a DCE, (2) to present a practical guide and pretesting interview discussion template for researchers looking to conduct a rigorous pretest of a DCE, and (3) to provide an illustrative example of how these resources were operationalized to inform the design of a complex DCE aimed at eliciting tradeoffs between personal privacy and societal benefit in the context of a police method known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG).


Assuntos
Comportamento de Escolha , Preferência do Paciente , Humanos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Inquéritos e Questionários
3.
Citiz Sci ; 7(1)2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37275349

RESUMO

In citizen science, in-depth interviews have advanced the understanding of project leaders' and citizen scientists' objectives, motivations, attitudes, and concerns. The issues encountered by researchers conducting in-depth interviews in citizen science are likely not unique to this field. However, these issues can surface and play out in distinct ways that depend on the scientific and sociopolitical circumstances of citizen science communities and projects. Researchers' experiences conducting in-depth interviews are the subject of a growing literature that describes considerations for conducting research with discrete populations. We aim to contribute to this literature by describing salient practical, ethical, and legal issues to consider when interviewing biomedical citizen scientists, with a focus on bottom-up biomedical citizen scientists who have loose or no affiliations with traditional scientific institutions. These issues concern how to define the interview population; earn trust and demonstrate trustworthiness given past treatment of bottom-up biomedical citizen scientists by traditional researchers and institutions; adapt research practices to the strong culture of openness that characterizes bottom-up biomedical citizen science; and manage potential safety concerns. This essay draws on our own experiences and those of other qualitative researchers and makes suggestions for addressing these issues in ways intended to protect study integrity and demonstrate respect for participants. We also identify questions that would benefit from broad input and continued study. Our objectives in sharing these lessons learned are to support future research and to improve understanding of this exciting participatory space.

4.
New Genet Soc ; 41(2): 74-95, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36593889

RESUMO

The perspectives of genomic citizen scientists on ownership of research outputs are not well understood, yet they are useful for identifying alignment of participant expectations and project practices and can help guide efforts to develop innovative tools and strategies for managing ownership claims. Here, we report findings from 52 interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 to understand genomic citizen science stakeholders' conceptualizations of, experiences with, and preferences for ownership of research outputs. Interviewees identified four approaches for recognizing genomic citizen scientists' ownership and related credit interests in research outputs: shared governance via commons models; fractional ownership of benefits; full and creative attribution; and offensive and defensive patenting. Interviewees also agreed that the model selected by any project should at least maximize access to research outputs and, as appropriate and to the extent possible, broadly distribute rights of control and entitlements to research benefits.

5.
Citiz Sci ; 6(1)2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35474712

RESUMO

As biomedical citizen science initiatives become more prevalent, the unique ethical issues that they raise are attracting policy attention. The ethical oversight of bottom-up biomedical citizen science projects that are designed and executed primarily or solely by members of the public is a significant concern because the federal rules that require ethical oversight of research by institutional review boards generally do not apply to such projects, creating what has been called an ethics gap. Working to close this gap, practitioners and scholars have considered new mechanisms of ethical oversight for biomedical citizen science. To date, however, participants' attitudes about ethics and oversight preferences have not been systematically examined. This information is useful to efforts to develop ethical oversight mechanisms because it provides a basis for evaluating the likely effectiveness of specific features of such mechanisms and their acceptability from the perspective of biomedical citizen scientists. Here, we report data from qualitative interviews with 35 stakeholders in bottom-up biomedical citizen science about their general ethics attitudes and preferences regarding ethical oversight. Interviewees described ten ethical priorities and endorsed oversight mechanisms that are voluntary, community-driven, and offer guidance. Conversely, interviewees rejected mechanisms that are mandatory, hierarchical, and inflexible. Applying these findings, we conclude that expert consultation and community review models appear to align well with ethical priorities and oversight preferences of many biomedical citizen scientists, although local conditions should guide the development and use of mechanisms in specific communities.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA