Cargando…

Is Incidental Finding the Best Term? A Study of Patients’ Preferences

PURPOSE: There is debate within the genetics community about the optimal term to describe genetic variants unrelated to the test indication, but potentially important for health. Given the lack of consensus and the importance of adopting terminology that promotes effective clinical communication, we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tan, Nina, Amendola, Laura M, O’Daniel, Julianne M., Burt, Amber, Horike-Pyne, Martha J., Boshe, Lacey, Henderson, Gail E., Rini, Christine, Roche M.S., Myra I., Hisama, Fuki M., Burke, Wylie, Wilfond, Benjamin, Jarvik, Gail P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5291803/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27490114
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.96
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: There is debate within the genetics community about the optimal term to describe genetic variants unrelated to the test indication, but potentially important for health. Given the lack of consensus and the importance of adopting terminology that promotes effective clinical communication, we sought the opinion of clinical genetics patients. METHODS: Surveys and focus groups with two patient populations were conducted. Eighty-eight survey participants were asked to rank four terms according to how well each describes results unrelated to the test indication: incidental findings, secondary findings, additional findings, and ancillary findings. Participants in six focus groups were guided through a free-thought exercise to describe desired attributes of such a term, and then asked to formulate a best term to represent this concept. RESULTS: The term additional findings had the most first choice rankings by survey participants, followed by secondary findings, incidental findings, and ancillary findings. Most focus group participants preferred the term additional findings; they also described reasons why other terms were not optimal. CONCLUSION: Additional findings was preferred as both more neutral and accessible than other terms currently in use. Patient perceptions and comprehension will be framed by the terminology. Thus, patient opinions should be considered by medical genetics professionals.