Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 97 (2), 312-320

Decisional Conflict Among Adolescents and Parents Making Decisions About Genomic Sequencing Results


Decisional Conflict Among Adolescents and Parents Making Decisions About Genomic Sequencing Results

Preethi Raghuram Pillai et al. Clin Genet.


Genomic testing of adolescents is increasing yet engaging them in decision-making is not routine. We assessed decisional conflict in adolescents and a parent making independent decisions about actual genomic testing results and factors that influenced their choices. We enrolled 163 dyads consisting of an adolescent (13-17 years) not selected based on a specific clinical indication and one parent. After independently choosing categories of conditions to learn for the adolescent, participants completed the validated Decisional Conflict Scale and a survey assessing factors influencing their respective choices. Adolescents had higher decisional conflict scores than parents (15.6 [IQR:4.7-25.6] vs 9.4 [IQR:1.6-21.9]; P = .0007). Adolescents with clinically significant decisional conflict were less likely to choose to learn all results than adolescents with lower decisional conflict (19.6% vs 80.4%; P < .0001) and less likely to report their choices were influenced by actionability of results (33.3% vs 18.9%; P = .044) and feeling confident they can deal with the results (71.2% vs 91.9%; P = .0005). Our findings suggest higher decisional conflict in adolescents may influence the type and amount of genomic results they wish to learn. Additional research assessing decisional conflict and factors influencing testing choices among adolescents in clinical settings are required.

Keywords: adolescent; conflict (psychology); decision-making; genomics.

Similar articles

See all similar articles



    1. Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, et al. 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(1):21-29.
    1. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15(7):565-574.
    1. Scheuner MT, Peredo J, Benkendorf J, et al. Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in. Genet Med. 2015;17(1):27-35.
    1. Burke W, Antommaria AH, Bennett R, et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genet Med. 2013;15(11):854-859.
    1. Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science. 2013;340(6136):1049-1050.

LinkOut - more resources