Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Freedom of Choice About Incidental Findings Can Frustrate Participants' True Preferences.

Bioethics - 1 Mar 2016

Viberg Jennifer, Segerdahl Pär, Langenskiöld Sophie, Hansson Mats G

Abstract excerpt

Ethicists, regulators and researchers have struggled with the question of whether incidental findings in genomics studies should be disclosed to participants. In the ethical debate, a general consensus is that disclosed information should benefit participants. However, there is no agreement that genetic information will benefit participants, rather it may cause problems such as anxiety. One could get past this...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Affect
Share to Choice Behavior
Share to Comprehension

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to Disclosure

Share to Incidental Findings

Share to Informed Consent

Share to Personal Autonomy

Share to Uncertainty

Source

Identifiers

PMID: 25908209
DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12160

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 6 Sept 2026. Manifest publication-graph-cohort-2026-09-06.1.

Source receipt: pubmed, retrieved 6 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Freedom of Choice About Incidental Findings Can Frustrate Participants' True Preferences.PMID 25908209Read ↗

Disclosing incidental findings in genetics contexts: a review of the empirical ethical research.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Ethical Aspects of Genotype Disclosure: Perceptions of Participants in a Nutrigenetic Study in Finland.Semantic proximity Read ↗

What Research Participants Want to Know About Genetic Research Results: The Impact of “Genetic Exceptionalism”Semantic proximity Read ↗

Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: The emerging issue of incidental findingsSemantic proximity Read ↗

Research participants in NGS studies want to know about incidental findings.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Perceived ambiguity as a barrier to intentions to learn genome sequencing results.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Perspectives of Italian lay persons who would decline genetic risk information: "I think I'd be living in constant worry".Semantic proximity Read ↗

Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics EraSemantic proximity Read ↗

Attitudes of healthy volunteers to genetic testing in phase 1 clinical trialsSemantic proximity Read ↗

A genetic researcher's devil's dilemma: Warn relatives about their genetic risk or respect confidentiality agreements with research participants?Semantic proximity Read ↗

A new approach to assessing affect and the emotional implications of personal genomic testing for common disease risk.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Why do people seek out polygenic risk scores for complex disorders, and how do they understand and react to results?Semantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.