BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Cited by in F6Publishing
For: Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, Firth HV, Hurles ME, Wright CF, Parker M; DDD study. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet 2016;24:21-9. [PMID: 25920556 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.58] [Cited by in Crossref: 116] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 107] [Article Influence: 16.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
Number Citing Articles
1 Grandval P, Fabre A, Béroud C, Olschwang S. Consideration surrounding incidental findings throughout multigene panel testing in cancer genetics. Clin Genet 2016;89:267-8. [DOI: 10.1111/cge.12672] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
2 Ewuoso C, Berkman B, Wonkam A, de Vries J. Should institutions fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research? J Med Ethics 2022:medethics-2021-107992. [PMID: 35710317 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107992] [Reference Citation Analysis]
3 Kost RG, Poppel SM, Coller BS. Informed consent for next-generation nucleotide sequencing studies: Aiding communication between participants and investigators. J Clin Transl Sci 2017;1:115-20. [PMID: 28649453 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2016.21] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
4 Gornick MC, Scherer AM, Sutton EJ, Ryan KA, Exe NL, Li M, Uhlmann WR, Kim SY, Roberts JS, De Vries RG. Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing. J Genet Couns 2017;26:122-32. [PMID: 27307100 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-016-9987-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
5 Pereira S, Oliver Robinson J, McGuire AL. Return of individual genomic research results: what do consent forms tell participants? Eur J Hum Genet 2016;24:1524-9. [PMID: 27329739 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.76] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
6 Raghuram Pillai P, Prows CA, Martin LJ, Myers MF. Decisional conflict among adolescents and parents making decisions about genomic sequencing results. Clin Genet 2020;97:312-20. [PMID: 31654527 DOI: 10.1111/cge.13658] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
7 Ewuoso C. Ubuntu philosophy and the consensus regarding incidental findings in genomic research: a heuristic approach. Med Health Care and Philos 2020;23:433-44. [DOI: 10.1007/s11019-020-09953-4] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
8 Carrieri D, Howard HC, Benjamin C, Clarke AJ, Dheensa S, Doheny S, Hawkins N, Halbersma-Konings TF, Jackson L, Kayserili H, Kelly SE, Lucassen AM, Mendes Á, Rial-Sebbag E, Stefánsdóttir V, Turnpenny PD, van El CG, van Langen IM, Cornel MC, Forzano F; European Society of Human Genetics. Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 2019;27:169-82. [PMID: 30310124 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0285-1] [Cited by in Crossref: 37] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
9 Strohmaier J, Witt SH, Frank J, Lemme N, Flatau L, Streit F, Foo JC, Reitt M, Rujescu D, Schulze TG, Lanzerath D, Illes F, Degenhardt F, Rietschel M. Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2019;180:555-65. [PMID: 30912305 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32724] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
10 Wallace SE, Gourna EG, Nikolova V, Sheehan NA. Family tree and ancestry inference: is there a need for a 'generational' consent? BMC Med Ethics 2015;16:87. [PMID: 26645273 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-015-0080-2] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
11 Blasimme A, Brall C, Vayena E. Reporting Genetic Findings to Individual Research Participants: Guidelines From the Swiss Personalized Health Network. Front Genet 2020;11:585820. [PMID: 33362850 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2020.585820] [Reference Citation Analysis]
12 Nowak KJ, Bauskis A, Dawkins HJ, Baynam G. Incidental inequity. Eur J Hum Genet 2018;26:616-7. [PMID: 29449719 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0101-y] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
13 Titerlea V, Dembélé D, Mandel JL, Laporte J. Attitudes towards Genetic Information Delivered by High-Throughput Sequencing among Molecular Geneticists, Genetic Counselors, Medical Advisors and Students in France. Eur J Med Genet 2020;63:103770. [PMID: 31536829 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.103770] [Reference Citation Analysis]
14 Blazek AD, Kinnamon DD, Jordan E, Ni H, Hershberger RE. Attitudes of Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients and Investigators Toward Genomic Study Enrollment, Consent Process, and Return of Genetic Results. Clin Transl Sci 2021;14:550-7. [PMID: 33108689 DOI: 10.1111/cts.12909] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
15 Staunton C, Kösters M, Pramstaller PP, Mascalzoni D. Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants. J Community Genet 2021. [PMID: 34241790 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00536-1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
16 Hurlimann T, Jaitovich Groisman I, Godard B. Exploring neurologists' perspectives on the return of next generation sequencing results to their patients: a needed step in the development of guidelines. BMC Med Ethics 2018;19:81. [PMID: 30268121 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-018-0320-3] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
17 Burns C, Yeates L, Spinks C, Semsarian C, Ingles J. Attitudes, knowledge and consequences of uncertain genetic findings in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Eur J Hum Genet 2017;25:809-15. [PMID: 28594412 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2017.66] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 19] [Article Influence: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
18 Ploug T, Holm S. Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about 'incidental' findings-From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs). PLoS One 2017;12:e0179935. [PMID: 28671958 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179935] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
19 Hylind R, Smith M, Rasmussen-Torvik L, Aufox S. Great expectations: patient perspectives and anticipated utility of non-diagnostic genomic-sequencing results. J Community Genet 2018;9:19-26. [PMID: 28656483 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-017-0314-8] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
20 Nobile H, Borry P, Moldenhauer J, Bergmann MM. Return of Results in Population Studies: How Do Participants Perceive Them? Public Health Ethics 2021;14:12-22. [DOI: 10.1093/phe/phaa034] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
21 Szego MJ, Meyn MS, Shuman C, Zlotnik Shaul R, Anderson JA, Bowdin S, Monfared N, Hayeems RZ. Views from the clinic: Healthcare provider perspectives on whole genome sequencing in paediatrics. Eur J Med Genet 2019;62:350-6. [PMID: 30503855 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.11.029] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
22 Burns C, James C, Ingles J. Communication of genetic information to families with inherited rhythm disorders. Heart Rhythm 2018;15:780-6. [PMID: 29175646 DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.11.024] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17] [Article Influence: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
23 Jedwab A, Vears DF, Tse C, Gyngell C. Genetics experience impacts attitudes towards germline gene editing: a survey of over 1500 members of the public. J Hum Genet 2020;65:1055-65. [PMID: 32737393 DOI: 10.1038/s10038-020-0810-2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
24 Lázaro-Muñoz G, Farrell MS, Crowley JJ, Filmyer DM, Shaughnessy RA, Josiassen RC, Sullivan PF. Improved ethical guidance for the return of results from psychiatric genomics research. Mol Psychiatry 2018;23:15-23. [PMID: 29158581 DOI: 10.1038/mp.2017.228] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
25 Veldwijk J, Johansson JV, Donkers B, de Bekker-Grob EW. Mimicking Real-Life Decision Making in Health: Allowing Respondents Time to Think in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Value Health 2020;23:945-52. [PMID: 32762997 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.014] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
26 Boeldt DL, Cheung C, Ariniello L, Darst BF, Topol S, Schork NJ, Philis-Tsimikas A, Torkamani A, Fortmann AL, Bloss CS. Patient perspectives on whole-genome sequencing for undiagnosed diseases. Per Med 2017;14:17-25. [PMID: 29749824 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2016-0050] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
27 Scherr CL, Aufox S, Ross AA, Ramesh S, Wicklund CA, Smith M. What People Want to Know About Their Genes: A Critical Review of the Literature on Large-Scale Genome Sequencing Studies. Healthcare (Basel) 2018;6:E96. [PMID: 30096823 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare6030096] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
28 Taher J, Mighton C, Chowdhary S, Casalino S, Frangione E, Arnoldo S, Bearss E, Binnie A, Bombard Y, Borgundvaag B, Chertkow H, Clausen M, Devine L, Faghfoury H, Friedman SM, Gingras AC, Khan Z, Mazzulli T, McGeer A, McLeod SL, Pugh TJ, Richardson D, Simpson J, Stern S, Strug L, Taher A, Lerner-Ellis J. Implementation of serological and molecular tools to inform COVID-19 patient management: protocol for the GENCOV prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2021;11:e052842. [PMID: 34593505 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052842] [Reference Citation Analysis]
29 Rosier M, Guedj M, Calvas P, Julia S, Garnier C, Cambon-Thomsen A, Muñoz Sastre MT. Attitudes of French populations towards the disclosure of unsolicited findings in medical genetics. J Health Psychol 2021;26:1767-79. [PMID: 31707852 DOI: 10.1177/1359105319886622] [Reference Citation Analysis]
30 Timmermans S, Stivers T. The social utility of clinical exome sequencing. Patient Educ Couns 2018;101:221-6. [PMID: 28869057 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.010] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
31 Lázaro-Muñoz G, Torgerson L, Smith HS, Pereira S. Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers. Eur J Hum Genet 2021;29:231-40. [PMID: 33011736 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-00738-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
32 AlFayyad I, Al-Tannir M, Abu-Shaheen A, AlGhamdi S. To disclose, or not to disclose? Perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research. BMC Med Ethics 2021;22:101. [PMID: 34315465 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-021-00670-y] [Reference Citation Analysis]
33 Vears DF, Minion JT, Roberts SJ, Cummings J, Machirori M, Murtagh MJ. Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review. Per Med 2021;18:295-310. [PMID: 33822658 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2020-0139] [Reference Citation Analysis]
34 Boardman F, Hale R. Responsibility, identity, and genomic sequencing: A comparison of published recommendations and patient perspectives on accepting or declining incidental findings. Mol Genet Genomic Med 2018;6:1079-96. [PMID: 30370638 DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.485] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
35 Boardman FK, Young PJ, Griffiths FE. Population screening for spinal muscular atrophy: A mixed methods study of the views of affected families. Am J Med Genet A 2017;173:421-34. [PMID: 27792846 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.38031] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 19] [Article Influence: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
36 Middleton A, Wright CF, Morley KI, Bragin E, Firth HV, Hurles ME, Parker M; DDD study. Potential research participants support the return of raw sequence data. J Med Genet 2015;52:571-4. [PMID: 25995218 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103119] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
37 Schupmann W, Miner SA, Sullivan HK, Glover JR, Hall JE, Schurman SH, Berkman BE. Exploring the motivations of research participants who chose not to learn medically actionable secondary genetic findings about themselves. Genet Med 2021. [PMID: 34326490 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01271-1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
38 AbdulAzeez S, Al Qahtani NH, Almandil NB, Al-Amodi AM, Aldakeel SA, Ghanem NZ, Alkuroud DN, AlTurki A, AlQattan QA, Alghamdi A, Alhur NF, Al Taifi HA, Aljofi HE, Jermy BR, Raman V, Giambona A, Maggio A, Borgio JF. Genetic disorder prenatal diagnosis and pregnancy termination practices among high consanguinity population, Saudi Arabia. Sci Rep 2019;9:17248. [PMID: 31754150 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-53655-8] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
39 Sundby A, Boolsen MW, Burgdorf KS, Ullum H, Hansen TF, Middleton A, Mors O. Stakeholders in psychiatry and their attitudes toward receiving pertinent and incident findings in genomic research. Am J Med Genet A 2017;173:2649-58. [PMID: 28817238 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.38380] [Cited by in Crossref: 16] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
40 Roberts J, Middleton A. Genetics in the 21st Century: Implications for patients, consumers and citizens. F1000Res 2017;6:2020. [PMID: 29259772 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12850.2] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
41 Chassagne A, Pélissier A, Houdayer F, Cretin E, Gautier E, Salvi D, Kidri S, Godard A, Thauvin-Robinet C, Masurel A, Lehalle D, Jean-Marçais N, Thevenon J, Lesca G, Putoux A, Cordier MP, Dupuis-Girod S, Till M, Duffourd Y, Rivière JB, Joly L, Juif C, Putois O, Ancet P, Lapointe AS, Morin P, Edery P, Rossi M, Sanlaville D, Béjean S, Peyron C, Faivre L. Exome sequencing in clinical settings: preferences and experiences of parents of children with rare diseases (SEQUAPRE study). Eur J Hum Genet 2019;27:701-10. [PMID: 30710147 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0332-y] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
42 Rasmussen V, Forrest LE, Rogasik M, Girodet M, Meeus P, Sunyach MP, Blay JY, Bally O, Brahmi M, Ballinger ML, Niedermayr E, Thomas DM, Halliday J, James P, Ray-Coquard I, Young MA; International Sarcoma Kindred Study. A comparison of Australian and French families affected by sarcoma: perceptions of genetics and incidental findings. Per Med 2018;15:13-24. [PMID: 29714116 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2017-0035] [Reference Citation Analysis]
43 Balicza P, Terebessy A, Grosz Z, Varga NA, Gal A, Fekete BA, Molnar MJ. Implementation of personalized medicine in Central-Eastern Europe: pitfalls and potentials based on citizen's attitude. EPMA J 2018;9:103-12. [PMID: 29515690 DOI: 10.1007/s13167-017-0125-3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
44 Forbes Shepherd R, Forrest LE, Tutty E, Pearce A, Devereux L, James PA, Campbell IG, Trainer A, Young M. Unselected Women's Experiences of Receiving Genetic Research Results for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Qualitative Study. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 2021;25:741-8. [DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2021.0115] [Reference Citation Analysis]
45 Strande NT, Berg JS. Defining the Clinical Value of a Genomic Diagnosis in the Era of Next-Generation Sequencing. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2016;17:303-32. [PMID: 27362341 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022348] [Cited by in Crossref: 31] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
46 Umbach N, Beißbarth T, Bleckmann A, Duttge G, Flatau L, König A, Kuhn J, Perera-bel J, Roschauer J, Schulze T, Schweda M, Urban A, Zimmermann A, Sax U. Clinical application of genomic high-throughput data: Infrastructural, ethical, legal and psychosocial aspects. European Neuropsychopharmacology 2020;31:1-15. [DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2019.09.008] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
47 Boardman FK, Hale R. "I didn't take it too seriously because I'd just never heard of it": Experiential knowledge and genetic screening for thalassaemia in the UK. J Genet Couns 2019;28:141-54. [PMID: 30629758 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1042] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
48 Dodson CH. Attitudes of oncology nurses concerning pharmacogenomics. Per Med 2017;14:515-20. [PMID: 29749856 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2017-0034] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
49 Courtney E, Li ST, Shaw T, Chen Y, Allen JC Jr, Ngeow J. Predictors of next-generation sequencing panel selection using a shared decision-making approach. NPJ Genom Med 2018;3:11. [PMID: 29736259 DOI: 10.1038/s41525-018-0050-y] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
50 Henrikson NB, Scrol A, Leppig KA, Ralston JD, Larson EB, Jarvik GP. Preferences of biobank participants for receiving actionable genomic test results: results of a recontacting study. Genet Med 2021;23:1163-6. [PMID: 33603197 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01111-2] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
51 Middleton A, Milne R, Howard H, Niemiec E, Robarts L, Critchley C, Nicol D, Prainsack B, Atutornu J, Vears DF, Smith J, Steed C, Bevan P, Scott ER, Bobe J, Goodhand P, Kleiderman E, Thorogood A, Morley KI; Participant Values Work Stream of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data. Eur J Hum Genet 2020;28:424-34. [PMID: 31784701 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0550-y] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
52 Ormondroyd E, Mackley MP, Blair E, Craft J, Knight JC, Taylor JC, Taylor J, Watkins H. "Not pathogenic until proven otherwise": perspectives of UK clinical genomics professionals toward secondary findings in context of a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team and the 100,000 Genomes Project. Genet Med 2018;20:320-8. [PMID: 29261176 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2017.157] [Cited by in Crossref: 33] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30] [Article Influence: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
53 Purvis RS, Long CR, Eisenberg LR, Hester DM, Cunningham TV, Holland A, Chatrathi HE, McElfish PA. First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2020;11:104-13. [PMID: 32163009 DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1737980] [Reference Citation Analysis]
54 Zhu X, Basappa SN, Ridgeway JL, Albertie ML, Pantoja E, Prescott D, Radecki Breitkopf C. Perspectives regarding family disclosure of genetic research results in three racial and ethnic minority populations. J Community Genet 2020;11:433-43. [PMID: 32562160 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-020-00472-6] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
55 Delanne J, Nambot S, Chassagne A, Putois O, Pelissier A, Peyron C, Gautier E, Thevenon J, Cretin E, Bruel AL, Goussot V, Ghiringhelli F, Boidot R, Tran Mau-Them F, Philippe C, Vitobello A, Demougeot L, Vernin C, Lapointe AS, Bardou M, Luu M, Binquet C, Lejeune C, Joly L, Juif C, Baurand A, Sawka C, Bertolone G, Duffourd Y, Sanlaville D, Pujol P, Geneviève D, Houdayer F, Thauvin-Robinet C, Faivre L. Secondary findings from whole-exome/genome sequencing evaluating stakeholder perspectives. A review of the literature. Eur J Med Genet 2019;62:103529. [PMID: 30165243 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.08.010] [Cited by in Crossref: 18] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 18] [Article Influence: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
56 Fleming J, Terrill B, Dziadek M, Kirk EP, Roscioli T, Barlow-stewart K. Personal genomic screening: How best to facilitate preparedness of future clients. European Journal of Medical Genetics 2019;62:397-404. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.05.006] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
57 Tabor HK, Jamal SM, Yu JH, Crouch JM, Shankar AG, Dent KM, Anderson N, Miller DA, Futral BT, Bamshad MJ. My46: a Web-based tool for self-guided management of genomic test results in research and clinical settings. Genet Med 2017;19:467-75. [PMID: 27632689 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.133] [Cited by in Crossref: 22] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 18] [Article Influence: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
58 Kostick KM, Blumenthal-Barby JS. Avoiding "toxic knowledge": the importance of framing personalized risk information in clinical decision-making. Per Med 2021;18:91-5. [PMID: 33616460 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2020-0174] [Reference Citation Analysis]
59 Ochieng J, Kwagala B, Barugahare J, Mwaka E, Ekusai-Sebatta D, Ali J, Sewankambo NK. Perspectives and ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results: a qualitative study of genomics researchers in Uganda. BMC Med Ethics 2021;22:154. [PMID: 34798900 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-021-00724-1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
60 Kostick K, Pereira S, Brannan C, Torgerson L, Lázaro-Muñoz G. Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants. Genet Med 2020;22:345-52. [PMID: 31477844 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0642-7] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
61 Clark CC, Boardman FK. Expanding the notion of “benefit”: comparing public, parent, and professional attitudes towards whole genome sequencing in newborns. New Genetics and Society. [DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2022.2091533] [Reference Citation Analysis]
62 Viberg Johansson J, Segerdahl P, Ugander UH, Hansson MG, Langenskiöld S. Making sense of genetic risk: A qualitative focus-group study of healthy participants in genomic research. Patient Education and Counseling 2018;101:422-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.09.009] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
63 Sundby A, Boolsen MW, Burgdorf KS, Ullum H, Hansen TF, Middleton A, Mors O. The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery. Eur Psychiatry 2019;55:29-35. [PMID: 30384109 DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.09.005] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
64 Kawame H, Fukushima A, Fuse N, Nagami F, Suzuki Y, Sakurai-Yageta M, Yasuda J, Yamaguchi-Kabata Y, Kinoshita K, Ogishima S, Takai T, Kuriyama S, Hozawa A, Nakaya N, Nakamura T, Minegishi N, Sugawara J, Suzuki K, Tomita H, Uruno A, Kobayashi T, Aizawa Y, Tokutomi T, Yamamoto K, Ohneda K, Kure S, Aoki Y, Katagiri H, Ishigaki Y, Sawada S, Sasaki M, Yamamoto M. The return of individual genomic results to research participants: design and pilot study of Tohoku Medical Megabank Project. J Hum Genet 2021. [PMID: 34234266 DOI: 10.1038/s10038-021-00952-8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
65 Chan PA, Lewis KL, Biesecker BB, Erby LH, Fasaye GA, Epps S, Biesecker LG, Turbitt E. Preferences for and acceptability of receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail: A focus group study with a primarily African-American cohort. J Genet Couns 2021. [PMID: 33876469 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1424] [Reference Citation Analysis]
66 Okita T, Ohashi N, Kabata D, Shintani A, Kato K. Public attitudes in Japan toward participation in whole genome sequencing studies. Hum Genomics 2018;12:21. [PMID: 29653595 DOI: 10.1186/s40246-018-0153-7] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
67 Mwaka ES, Sebatta DE, Ochieng J, Munabi IG, Bagenda G, Ainembabazi D, Kaawa-Mafigiri D. Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study. Glob Bioeth 2021;32:15-33. [PMID: 33762814 DOI: 10.1080/11287462.2021.1896453] [Reference Citation Analysis]
68 Blasimme A, Moret C, Hurst SA, Vayena E. Informed Consent and the Disclosure of Clinical Results to Research Participants. Am J Bioeth 2017;17:58-60. [PMID: 28661744 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1328532] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
69 Kostick KM, Brannan C, Pereira S, Lázaro-Muñoz G. Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2019;180:589-600. [PMID: 30358063 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32682] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
70 Tamayo LI, Lin H, Ahmed A, Shahriar H, Hasan R, Sarwar G, Eunus HM, Ahsan H, Pierce BL. Research Participants' Attitudes towards Receiving Information on Genetic Susceptibility to Arsenic Toxicity in Rural Bangladesh. Public Health Genomics 2020;23:69-76. [PMID: 32069464 DOI: 10.1159/000505632] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
71 Zawati MH, Tassé AM, Mendy M, Caboux E, Lang M; on Behalf of Biobank and Cohort Building Network Members. Barriers and Opportunities in Consent and Access Procedures in Low- and Middle-Income Country Biobanks: Meeting Notes from the BCNet Training and General Assembly. Biopreservation and Biobanking 2018;16:171-8. [DOI: 10.1089/bio.2017.0081] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
72 Heaton TJ, Chico V. Attitudes towards the sharing of genetic information with at-risk relatives: results of a quantitative survey. Hum Genet 2016;135:109-20. [PMID: 26612611 DOI: 10.1007/s00439-015-1612-z] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
73 Viberg Johansson J, Langenskiöld S, Segerdahl P, Hansson MG, Hösterey UU, Gummesson A, Veldwijk J. Research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information: a discrete choice experiment. Genet Med 2019;21:2381-9. [PMID: 30992550 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0511-4] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
74 Youngmann B, Allerhand L, Paltiel O, Yom-Tov E, Arkadir D. A machine learning algorithm successfully screens for Parkinson's in web users. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2019;6:2503-9. [PMID: 31714022 DOI: 10.1002/acn3.50945] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
75 Mayeur C, van Hoof W. Citizens' conceptions of the genome: Related values and practical implications in a citizen forum on the use of genomic information. Health Expect 2021;24:468-77. [PMID: 33453142 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13187] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
76 Saelaert M, Mertes H, Moerenhout T, De Baere E, Devisch I. Criteria for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome sequencing - a focus group study on professional practices and perspectives in Belgian genetic centres. BMC Med Genomics 2019;12:123. [PMID: 31429751 DOI: 10.1186/s12920-019-0561-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
77 Love-Nichols J, Uhlmann WR, Arscott P, Willer C, Hornsby W, Roberts JS. A survey of aortic disease biorepository participants' preferences for return of research genetic results. J Genet Couns 2021;30:645-55. [PMID: 33319384 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1341] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
78 Ottman R, Freyer C, Mefford HC, Poduri A, Lowenstein DH; Epilepsy Return of Results Workshop Participants. Return of individual results in epilepsy genomic research: A view from the field. Epilepsia 2018;59:1635-42. [PMID: 30098010 DOI: 10.1111/epi.14530] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
79 Koplin JJ, Savulescu J, Vears DF. Why genomics researchers are sometimes morally required to hunt for secondary findings. BMC Med Ethics 2020;21:11. [PMID: 32005225 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-020-0449-8] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
80 Etchegary H, Wilson B, Rahman P, Simmonds C, Pullman D. Public interest in whole genome sequencing and information needs: an online survey study. Personalized Medicine 2020;17:283-93. [DOI: 10.2217/pme-2019-0136] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
81 Vears DF, Niemiec E, Howard HC, Borry P. How do consent forms for diagnostic high-throughput sequencing address unsolicited and secondary findings? A content analysis. Clin Genet 2018;94:321-9. [PMID: 29888485 DOI: 10.1111/cge.13391] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
82 Sundby A, Boolsen MW, Burgdorf KS, Ullum H, Hansen TF, Mors O. Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research. Hum Genomics 2018;12:12. [PMID: 29506557 DOI: 10.1186/s40246-018-0144-8] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
83 Bijlsma RM, Wessels H, Wouters RHP, May AM, Ausems MGEM, Voest EE, Bredenoord AL. Cancer patients' intentions towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using next-generation sequencing. Fam Cancer 2018;17:309-16. [PMID: 28852913 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-017-0033-7] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
84 Hammond CL, Willoughby JM, Parker MJ. Genomics for paediatricians: promises and pitfalls. Arch Dis Child 2018;103:895-900. [DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-314558] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
85 Goodman D, Bowen D, Wenzel L, Tehrani P, Fernando F, Khacheryan A, Chowdhury F, Johnson CO, Edwards K. The research participant perspective related to the conduct of genomic cohort studies: A systematic review of the quantitative literature. Transl Behav Med 2018;8:119-29. [PMID: 29385589 DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibx056] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
86 Souzeau E, Burdon KP, Mackey DA, Hewitt AW, Savarirayan R, Otlowski M, Craig JE. Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2016;5:3. [PMID: 26929883 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.5.1.3] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
87 Wilkins CH, Mapes BM, Jerome RN, Villalta-Gil V, Pulley JM, Harris PA. Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why. Health Aff (Millwood) 2019;38:399-407. [PMID: 30830824 DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05046] [Cited by in Crossref: 18] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16] [Article Influence: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
88 Gornick MC, Cobain E, Le LQ, Bartnik N, Stoffel E, Schuetze S, Talpaz M, Chinnaiyan A, Roberts JS; Michigan Oncology Sequencing Study. Oncologists' Use of Genomic Sequencing Data to Inform Clinical Management. JCO Precis Oncol 2018;2:PO. [PMID: 32914003 DOI: 10.1200/PO.17.00122] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
89 Flatau L, Reitt M, Duttge G, Lenk C, Zoll B, Poser W, Weber A, Heilbronner U, Rietschel M, Strohmaier J, Kesberg R, Nagel J, Schulze TG. Genomic information and a person's right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample. PLoS One 2018;13:e0198249. [PMID: 29924808 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198249] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
90 Sayeed S, Califf R, Green R, Wong C, Mahaffey K, Gambhir SS, Mega J, Patrick-Lake B, Frazier K, Pignone M, Hernandez A, Shah SH, Fan AC, Krüg S, Shaack T, Shore S, Spielman S, Eckstrand J, Wong CA; Project Baseline Health Study Research Group. Return of individual research results: What do participants prefer and expect? PLoS One 2021;16:e0254153. [PMID: 34324495 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254153] [Reference Citation Analysis]
91 Fiallos K, Applegate C, Mathews DJ, Bollinger J, Bergner AL, James CA. Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease. Eur J Hum Genet 2017;25:530-7. [PMID: 28272539 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2017.21] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
92 Quinlan-Jones E, Kilby MD, Greenfield S, Parker M, McMullan D, Hurles ME, Hillman SC. Prenatal whole exome sequencing: the views of clinicians, scientists, genetic counsellors and patient representatives. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:935-41. [PMID: 27550507 DOI: 10.1002/pd.4916] [Cited by in Crossref: 31] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
93 Budin-Ljøsne I, Mascalzoni D, Soini S, Machado H, Kaye J, Bentzen HB, Rial-Sebbag E, D'Abramo F, Witt M, Schamps G, Katić V, Krajnovic D, Harris JR. Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe? Biopreserv Biobank 2016;14:241-8. [PMID: 27082461 DOI: 10.1089/bio.2015.0115] [Cited by in Crossref: 16] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
94 LaRue KM, McKernan MP, Bass KM, Wray CG. Teaching the Genome Generation: Bringing Modern Human Genetics into the Classroom Through Teacher Professional Development. J STEM Outreach 2018;1:48-60. [PMID: 31667467 DOI: 10.15695/jstem/v1i1.12] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
95 Leitsalu L, Alavere H, Jacquemont S, Kolk A, Maillard AM, Reigo A, Nõukas M, Reymond A, Männik K, Ng PC, Metspalu A. Reporting incidental findings of genomic disorder-associated copy number variants to unselected biobank participants. Per Med 2016;13:303-14. [PMID: 29749813 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2016-0009] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
96 Wong CS, Kogon AJ, Warady BA, Furth SL, Lantos JD, Wilfond BS. Ethical and Policy Considerations for Genomic Testing in Pediatric Research: The Path Toward Disclosing Individual Research Results. Am J Kidney Dis 2019;73:837-45. [PMID: 30879919 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.01.020] [Reference Citation Analysis]
97 Azuma K, Yamanaka S. Recent policies that support clinical application of induced pluripotent stem cell-based regenerative therapies. Regen Ther 2016;4:36-47. [PMID: 31245486 DOI: 10.1016/j.reth.2016.01.009] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
98 Buchanan J, Hill M, Vass CM, Hammond J, Riedijk S, Klapwijk JE, Harding E, Lou S, Vogel I, Hui L, Ingvoldstad-Malmgren C, Soller MJ, Ormond KE, Choolani M, Zheng Q, Chitty LS, Lewis C. Factor's that impact on women's decision-making around prenatal genomic tests: An international discrete choice survey. Prenat Diagn 2022. [PMID: 35476801 DOI: 10.1002/pd.6159] [Reference Citation Analysis]
99 Yamamoto K, Hachiya T, Fukushima A, Nakaya N, Okayama A, Tanno K, Aizawa F, Tokutomi T, Hozawa A, Shimizu A. Population-based biobank participants' preferences for receiving genetic test results. J Hum Genet 2017;62:1037-48. [PMID: 28794501 DOI: 10.1038/jhg.2017.81] [Cited by in Crossref: 14] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
100 Middleton A. Your DNA, Your Say. New Bioeth 2017;23:74-80. [PMID: 28517993 DOI: 10.1080/20502877.2017.1314890] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
101 Bilkey GA, Burns BL, Coles EP, Bowman FL, Beilby JP, Pachter NS, Baynam G, J S Dawkins H, Nowak KJ, Weeramanthri TS. Genomic Testing for Human Health and Disease Across the Life Cycle: Applications and Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges. Front Public Health 2019;7:40. [PMID: 30915323 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00040] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
102 Bijlsma R, Wouters R, Wessels H, Sleijfer S, Beerepoot L, Ten Bokkel Huinink D, Cruijsen H, Heijns J, Lolkema MP, Steeghs N, van Voorthuizen T, Vulink A, Witteveen E, Ausems M, Bredenoord A, May AM, Voest E. Preferences to receive unsolicited findings of germline genome sequencing in a large population of patients with cancer. ESMO Open 2020;5:e000619. [PMID: 32312756 DOI: 10.1136/esmoopen-2019-000619] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
103 Spies G, Mokaya J, Steadman J, Schuitmaker N, Kidd M, Hemmings SMJ, Carr JA, Kuivaniemi H, Seedat S; SHARED ROOTS Group. Attitudes among South African university staff and students towards disclosing secondary genetic findings. J Community Genet 2021;12:171-84. [PMID: 33219499 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-020-00494-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
104 Lacaze P, Ryan J, Woods R, Winship I, McNeil J. Pathogenic variants in the healthy elderly: unique ethical and practical challenges. J Med Ethics 2017;43:714-22. [PMID: 28341755 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103967] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
105 Tiller J, Trainer AH, Campbell I, Lacaze PA. Ethical and practical implications of returning genetic research results: two Australian case studies. Med J Aust 2021;214:259-262.e1. [PMID: 33161572 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.50842] [Reference Citation Analysis]
106 Saelaert M, Mertes H, De Baere E, Devisch I. Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate. Eur J Hum Genet 2018;26:1424-31. [PMID: 29970927 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0200-9] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
107 Beil A, Hornsby W, Uhlmann WR, Aatre R, Arscott P, Wolford B, Eagle KA, Yang B, McNamara J, Willer C, Roberts JS. Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants. BMC Med Genomics 2021;14:66. [PMID: 33648514 DOI: 10.1186/s12920-021-00902-5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
108 Musunuru K, Arora P, Cooke JP, Ferguson JF, Hershberger RE, Hickey KT, Lee JM, Lima JAC, Loscalzo J, Pereira NL, Russell MW, Shah SH, Sheikh F, Wang TJ, MacRae CA;  American Heart Association Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine;  Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young;  Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing;  Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention;  Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease;  Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research;  and Stroke Council. Interdisciplinary Models for Research and Clinical Endeavors in Genomic Medicine: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2018;11:e000046. [PMID: 29844141 DOI: 10.1161/hcg.0000000000000046] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
109 Botkin JR. Informed Consent for Genetic and Genomic Research. Curr Protoc Hum Genet 2020;108:e104. [PMID: 33202103 DOI: 10.1002/cphg.104] [Reference Citation Analysis]
110 O'Doherty KC, Christofides E, Yen J, Bentzen HB, Burke W, Hallowell N, Koenig BA, Willison DJ. If you build it, they will come: unintended future uses of organised health data collections. BMC Med Ethics 2016;17:54. [PMID: 27600117 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0137-x] [Cited by in Crossref: 29] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
111 Mackley MP, Fletcher B, Parker M, Watkins H, Ormondroyd E. Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Genet Med 2017;19:283-93. [PMID: 27584911 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.109] [Cited by in Crossref: 74] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 70] [Article Influence: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
112 Chow-White P, Ha D, Laskin J. Knowledge, attitudes, and values among physicians working with clinical genomics: a survey of medical oncologists. Hum Resour Health 2017;15:42. [PMID: 28655303 DOI: 10.1186/s12960-017-0218-z] [Cited by in Crossref: 30] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 31] [Article Influence: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
113 Fadda M, Fiordelli M, Amati R, Falvo I, Ibnidris A, Hurst S, Albanese E. Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2021;36:207-14. [PMID: 32869397 DOI: 10.1002/gps.5416] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
114 Ryan KA, De Vries RG, Uhlmann WR, Roberts JS, Gornick MC. Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice. J Genet Couns 2017;26:1197-212. [PMID: 28357777 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0095-6] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
115 Horton R, Lucassen A. Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era. Curr Genet Med Rep 2019;7:85-91. [PMID: 31281738 DOI: 10.1007/s40142-019-00164-9] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
116 Vears DF, Minion JT, Roberts SJ, Cummings J, Machirori M, Blell M, Budin-Ljøsne I, Cowley L, Dyke SOM, Gaff C, Green R, Hall A, Johns AL, Knoppers BM, Mulrine S, Patch C, Winkler E, Murtagh MJ. Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. PLoS One 2021;16:e0258646. [PMID: 34748551 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258646] [Reference Citation Analysis]