Stakeholder opinions and ethical perspectives support complete disclosure of incidental findings in mri research

John P. Phillips; Caitlin Cole; John P. Gluck; Jody M. Shoemaker; Linda E. Petree; Deborah L. Helitzer; Ronald M. Schrader; Mark T. Holdsworth

doi:10.1080/10508422.2014.938338

Stakeholder opinions and ethical perspectives support complete disclosure of incidental findings in mri research

John P. Phillips, Caitlin Cole, John P. Gluck, Jody M. Shoemaker, Linda E. Petree, Deborah L. Helitzer, Ronald M. Schrader, Mark T. Holdsworth

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

20 Scopus citations

Abstract

How far does a researcher’s responsibility extend when an incidental finding is identified? Balancing pertinent ethical principles such as beneficence, respect for persons, and duty to rescue is not always straightforward, particularly in neuroimaging research where empirical data that might help guide decision making are lacking. We conducted a systematic survey of perceptions and preferences of 396 investigators, research participants, and Institutional Review Board members at our institution. Using the partial entrustment model as described by Richardson, we argue that our data supports universal reading by a neuroradiologist of all research MRI scans for incidental findings and providing full disclosure to all participants.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	332-350
Number of pages	19
Journal	Ethics and Behavior
Volume	25
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.938338
State	Published - Jul 4 2015
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Autonomy
Beneficence
Ethical principles
Ethics committee
IRB

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Social Psychology
General Psychology

Access to Document

10.1080/10508422.2014.938338

Cite this

@article{79c6d428694f4028a07352b5acea748e,

title = "Stakeholder opinions and ethical perspectives support complete disclosure of incidental findings in mri research",

abstract = "How far does a researcher{\textquoteright}s responsibility extend when an incidental finding is identified? Balancing pertinent ethical principles such as beneficence, respect for persons, and duty to rescue is not always straightforward, particularly in neuroimaging research where empirical data that might help guide decision making are lacking. We conducted a systematic survey of perceptions and preferences of 396 investigators, research participants, and Institutional Review Board members at our institution. Using the partial entrustment model as described by Richardson, we argue that our data supports universal reading by a neuroradiologist of all research MRI scans for incidental findings and providing full disclosure to all participants.",

keywords = "Autonomy, Beneficence, Ethical principles, Ethics committee, IRB",

author = "Phillips, {John P.} and Caitlin Cole and Gluck, {John P.} and Shoemaker, {Jody M.} and Petree, {Linda E.} and Helitzer, {Deborah L.} and Schrader, {Ronald M.} and Holdsworth, {Mark T.}",

note = "Funding Information: This project was supported by 1R21NS077050-01A1 (Phillips) and in part through the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health through Grant Number 8UL1TR000041, The University of New Mexico Clinical, and Translational Science Center Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.",

year = "2015",

month = jul,

day = "4",

doi = "10.1080/10508422.2014.938338",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "25",

pages = "332--350",

journal = "Ethics and Behavior",

issn = "1050-8422",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stakeholder opinions and ethical perspectives support complete disclosure of incidental findings in mri research

AU - Phillips, John P.

AU - Cole, Caitlin

AU - Gluck, John P.

AU - Shoemaker, Jody M.

AU - Petree, Linda E.

AU - Helitzer, Deborah L.

AU - Schrader, Ronald M.

AU - Holdsworth, Mark T.

N1 - Funding Information: This project was supported by 1R21NS077050-01A1 (Phillips) and in part through the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health through Grant Number 8UL1TR000041, The University of New Mexico Clinical, and Translational Science Center Publisher Copyright: © 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

PY - 2015/7/4

Y1 - 2015/7/4

N2 - How far does a researcher’s responsibility extend when an incidental finding is identified? Balancing pertinent ethical principles such as beneficence, respect for persons, and duty to rescue is not always straightforward, particularly in neuroimaging research where empirical data that might help guide decision making are lacking. We conducted a systematic survey of perceptions and preferences of 396 investigators, research participants, and Institutional Review Board members at our institution. Using the partial entrustment model as described by Richardson, we argue that our data supports universal reading by a neuroradiologist of all research MRI scans for incidental findings and providing full disclosure to all participants.

AB - How far does a researcher’s responsibility extend when an incidental finding is identified? Balancing pertinent ethical principles such as beneficence, respect for persons, and duty to rescue is not always straightforward, particularly in neuroimaging research where empirical data that might help guide decision making are lacking. We conducted a systematic survey of perceptions and preferences of 396 investigators, research participants, and Institutional Review Board members at our institution. Using the partial entrustment model as described by Richardson, we argue that our data supports universal reading by a neuroradiologist of all research MRI scans for incidental findings and providing full disclosure to all participants.

KW - Autonomy

KW - Beneficence

KW - Ethical principles

KW - Ethics committee

KW - IRB

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930759781&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930759781&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10508422.2014.938338

DO - 10.1080/10508422.2014.938338

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84930759781

SN - 1050-8422

VL - 25

SP - 332

EP - 350

JO - Ethics and Behavior

JF - Ethics and Behavior

IS - 4

ER -

Stakeholder opinions and ethical perspectives support complete disclosure of incidental findings in mri research

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this