Adolescents' and Parents' Perspectives on a Novel Decision-Making Process for Return of Results in Genomic Research.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-25 DOI:10.1177/15562646231190826
Kelly A Matula, Amy A Blumling, Melanie F Myers, Michelle L McGowan, Ellen A Lipstein
{"title":"Adolescents' and Parents' Perspectives on a Novel Decision-Making Process for Return of Results in Genomic Research.","authors":"Kelly A Matula,&nbsp;Amy A Blumling,&nbsp;Melanie F Myers,&nbsp;Michelle L McGowan,&nbsp;Ellen A Lipstein","doi":"10.1177/15562646231190826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To understand whether they found a two-step decision process helpful and why, adolescent-parent dyads participating in a study investigating return of genomic testing results were asked about their decision-making experience. Responses were qualitatively coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Adolescents and parents found both joint and independent decision-making stages helpful. Regarding independent decision-making, adolescents appreciated exercising independence, while parents valued both adolescent and parental independence. Joint decision-making allowed each to hear the other's viewpoints. Some found joint decision-making irrelevant but recognized it might help others. Overall, adolescents and parents had similar reasons for finding the two-step decision-making process helpful. Our findings support using such a process for engaging parents and adolescents in challenging research and clinical decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"18 4","pages":"278-283"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10529861/pdf/nihms-1917306.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231190826","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To understand whether they found a two-step decision process helpful and why, adolescent-parent dyads participating in a study investigating return of genomic testing results were asked about their decision-making experience. Responses were qualitatively coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Adolescents and parents found both joint and independent decision-making stages helpful. Regarding independent decision-making, adolescents appreciated exercising independence, while parents valued both adolescent and parental independence. Joint decision-making allowed each to hear the other's viewpoints. Some found joint decision-making irrelevant but recognized it might help others. Overall, adolescents and parents had similar reasons for finding the two-step decision-making process helpful. Our findings support using such a process for engaging parents and adolescents in challenging research and clinical decisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
青少年和父母对基因组研究结果返回的新决策过程的看法。
为了了解他们是否发现两步决策过程有帮助以及为什么,参与一项调查基因组检测结果返回的研究的青少年父母二人组被问及他们的决策经验。对答复进行了定性编码,并使用主题分析进行了分析。青少年和父母发现共同和独立决策阶段都很有帮助。关于独立决策,青少年赞赏行使独立性,而父母则重视青少年和父母的独立性。共同决策使双方都能听取对方的观点。一些人认为联合决策无关紧要,但也认识到这可能有助于其他人。总的来说,青少年和父母有相似的理由认为两步决策过程是有益的。我们的研究结果支持使用这样一个过程让父母和青少年参与具有挑战性的研究和临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics. Understanding of Key Considerations for Effective Community Engagement in Genetics and Genomics Research: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Research Ethics Committee Members and National Research Regulators in a low Resource Setting. Vulnerable Research Participant Policies at U.S. Academic Institutions. Considerations for the Design of Informed Consent in Digital Health Research: Participant Perspectives. Public Perspectives on Consent for and Governance of Biobanking in Japan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1