PurposeMuch information on parental perspectives on the return of individual research results (IRR) in pediatric genomic research is based on hypothetical rather than actual IRR. Our aim was to understand how the expected utility to parents who received IRR on their child from a genetic research study compared to the actual utility of the IRR received.MethodsWe conducted individual telephone interviews with parents who received IRR on their child through participation in the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research Gene Discovery Core (GDC) at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH).ResultsFive themes emerged around the utility that parents expected and actually received from IRR: predictability, management, family planning, finding answers, and helping science and/or families. Parents expressing negative or mixed emotions after IRR return were those who did not receive the utility they expected from the IRR. Conversely, parents who expressed positive emotions were those who received as much or greater utility than expected.ConclusionsDiscrepancies between expected and actual utility of IRR affect the experiences of parents and families enrolled in genetic research studies. An informed consent process that fosters realistic expectations between researchers and participants may help to minimize any negative impact on parents and families.

No abstract

Concerns about the ethical and social implications of genetics persist as more applications of genetic and genomic technology have become available. Pediatric testing for genetic influences on response to opioids like codeine is one area of application. We interviewed parents of children enrolled in a mixed-methods study following the communication of actual or hypothetical results for CYP2D6, which impacts opioid response. Forty-one parents of children naïve to opioids and 42 parents of children previously exposed to opioids participated in qualitative interviews. Findings did not differ by the child’s opioid exposure or by actual versus hypothetical results. Parents’ responses centered the experience of the parent(s) and the potential impact of that information on the parent, rather than the result’s impact on the child. Parents also emphasized that the results did not impact their perceptions of the child, reaffirming that the child was still “normal” regardless of test result. When asked about the impact of receiving secondary results, parents’ responses emphasized how the results would impact their ability to advocate for the child or impact their state of mind. While the answers reflect parents’ role as surrogate decision maker for their child, they also reinforced concerns that healthcare decisions might be influenced by secondary parental concerns as much as the best interests of the child. Emphasis on the child’s “normality” challenges concerns about the impact of genetic essentialism, but further research is required to see whether the type of testing done or the way results were communicated shaped this response.