Great expectations: patients’ preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing

[1]  P. Butow,et al.  Psychological predictors of cancer patients' and their relatives' attitudes towards the return of genomic sequencing results. , 2022, European journal of medical genetics.

[2]  Y. Bombard,et al.  Genetics Adviser: a protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial evaluating a digital platform for genetics service delivery , 2022, BMJ Open.

[3]  Katherine M. Tucker,et al.  Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting , 2022, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[4]  W. Chung,et al.  ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) , 2021, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  A. Laupacis,et al.  The role of digital tools in the delivery of genomic medicine: enhancing patient-centered care , 2021, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  A. Clarke,et al.  Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics , 2020, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[7]  S. Scherer,et al.  Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial , 2019, Genetics in Medicine.

[8]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial , 2019, BMJ Open.

[9]  Lisa J. Martin,et al.  Decisional conflict among adolescents and parents making decisions about genomic sequencing results , 2019, Clinical genetics.

[10]  Y. Bombard,et al.  Development of patient “profiles” to tailor counseling for incidental genomic sequencing results , 2019, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[11]  A. Laupacis,et al.  The Genomics ADvISER: development and usability testing of a decision aid for the selection of incidental sequencing results , 2018, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[12]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Evaluation of a decision aid for incidental genomic results, the Genomics ADvISER: protocol for a mixed methods randomised controlled trial , 2018, BMJ Open.

[13]  J. Ivanovich,et al.  Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors. , 2018, Translational behavioral medicine.

[14]  H. Watkins,et al.  Views of rare disease participants in a UK whole-genome sequencing study towards secondary findings: a qualitative study , 2018, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[15]  B. Koenig,et al.  Understanding variations in secondary findings reporting practices across U.S. genome sequencing laboratories , 2018, AJOB empirical bioethics.

[16]  W. Chung,et al.  Research Participants’ Preferences for Hypothetical Secondary Results from Genomic Research , 2017, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[17]  Thomas Ploug,et al.  Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about ‘incidental’ findings—From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs) , 2017, PloS one.

[18]  D. Dimmock,et al.  Choices of incidental findings of individuals undergoing genome wide sequencing, a single center's experience , 2017, Clinical genetics.

[19]  Lacey Smith,et al.  Reporting Incidental Findings in Clinical Whole Exome Sequencing: Incorporation of the 2013 ACMG Recommendations into Current Practices of Genetic Counseling , 2015, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[20]  Gabrielle M. Christenhusz,et al.  Towards a European consensus for reporting incidental findings during clinical NGS testing , 2015, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[21]  B. Fernandez,et al.  The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: Position Statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists , 2015, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[22]  David Veenstra,et al.  Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment , 2015, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[23]  R. Green,et al.  Parents' Preferences for Return of Results in Pediatric Genomic Research , 2014, Public Health Genomics.

[24]  L. Biesecker,et al.  Preferences for results delivery from Exome Sequencing/Genome Sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[25]  E. Palmaer,et al.  Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[26]  B. Knoppers,et al.  Whole-genome sequencing in health care , 2013, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[27]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value—development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT) , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[28]  Haley R. Eidem,et al.  Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge , 2012, Clinical genetics.

[29]  R. Green,et al.  Comparing test-specific distress of susceptibility versus deterministic genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease , 2008, Alzheimer's & Dementia.

[30]  Richard L. Street,et al.  Patient-centered communication in cancer care: Promoting healing and reducing suffering , 2007 .

[31]  P. Ubel,et al.  Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  M. Holmes-Rovner,et al.  International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS): beyond decision aids to usual design of patient education materials , 2007, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[33]  F. Harrell,et al.  Prognostic/Clinical Prediction Models: Multivariable Prognostic Models: Issues in Developing Models, Evaluating Assumptions and Adequacy, and Measuring and Reducing Errors , 2005 .

[34]  A. O'Connor.  Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[35]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[36]  Pascal Borry,et al.  Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. , 2013, European journal of human genetics : EJHG.

[37]  I. Rojas,et al.  Attitudes and knowledge about presymptomatic genetic testing among individuals at high risk for familial, early-onset Alzheimer's disease. , 2003, Genetic testing.