Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Parents, their children, whole exome sequencing and unsolicited findings: growing towards the child’s future autonomy


In a previous study we found that parents of children with developmental delay (DD) favoured acceptance of unsolicited findings (UFs) for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier status. Sometimes the child’s future autonomy formed a reason for withholding UFs for the present, despite an unfavourable prognosis concerning the child’s cognitive capabilities. This might be different for children undergoing whole exome sequencing (WES) for reasons other than DD and who are expected to exert future autonomy. This is the focus of the current study. We conducted nine qualitative, semi-structured interviews with parents of children, ages <1–15, after consenting to WES, but prior to feedback of results, and with three adolescent children. Several parents wished to receive any information that might in whatever way be relevant to the health and well-being of their child, and to a lesser extent wished the inclusion of information about non-actionable disorders and information concerning carrier status of autosomal recessive disorders. Although parents understood the rationale behind the centre’s UFs disclosure policy, they also felt that they needed this information in order to be able to exert their parental responsibility and take good care of a child still dependent on them. Parents reason from their notion of parental responsibility but are also inclined to take adolescent children’s preferences seriously and acknowledge the child’s incipient autonomy as a ground for granting an increasing degree of self-determination on the road to adulthood.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Carmichael N, Tsipis J, Windmueller G, Mandel L, Estrella E. “Is it going to hurt?”: the impact of the diagnostic odyssey on children and their families. J Genet Couns. 2015;24:325–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Chassagne A, Pelissier A, Houdayer F, Cretin E, Gautier E, Salvi D, et al. Exome sequencing in clinical settings: preferences and experiences of parents of children with rare diseases (SEQUAPRE study). Eur J Hum Genet. 2019;27:701–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rosell AM, Pena LD, Schoch K, Spillmann R, Sullivan J, Hooper SR, et al. Not the end of the odyssey: parental perceptions of Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) in pediatric undiagnosed disorders. J Genet Couns. 2016;25:1019–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med. 2011;13:499–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, Hastings RJ, Fellmann F, Hodgson SV, et al. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:S1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bredenoord AL O-MN, Van Delden JJ. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum Mutat. 2011;32:861–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dondorp W, Sikkema‐Raddatz B. de Die‐Smulders C, de Wert G. Arrays in postnatal and prenatal diagnosis: An exploration of the ethics of consent. Hum Mutat. 2012;33:916–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Tabor HK, Stock J, Brazg T, McMillin MJ, Dent KM, Yu JH, et al. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A:1310–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Borry P, Stultiens L, Nys H, Cassiman JJ, Dierickx K. Presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in minors: a systematic review of guidelines and position papers. Clin Genet. 2006;70:374–81.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cornelis C, Wouters RHP. Genome sequencing in pediatrics: ethical issues. In: Tibben A, Biesecker B, editors. Clinical genome sequencing; psychological considerations. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2019. p. 143–56.

  11. 11.

    Bertier G, Senecal K, Borry P, Vears DF. Unsolved challenges in pediatric whole-exome sequencing: a literature analysis. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2017;54:134–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Abdul-Karim RBB, Wendler D, Rid A, Khan J, Badgett T, Hull SC. Disclosure of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing in pediatric genomic research. Pediatrics. 2013;131:564–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bredenoord AL, de Vries MC, van Delden JJ. Next-generation sequencing: does the next generation still have a right to an open future. Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14:306.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Cornelis C, Tibben A, Dondorp W, van Haelst M, Bredenoord AL, Knoers N, et al. Whole-exome sequencing in pediatrics: parents’ considerations toward return of unsolicited findings for their child. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:1681–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Facio FM, Brooks S, Loewenstein J, Green S, Biesecker LG, Biesecker BB. Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011;19:1213–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Facio FM, Eidem H, Fisher T, Brooks S, Linn A, Kaphingst KA, et al. Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:261–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sapp JC, Dong D, Stark C, Ivey LE, Hooker G, Biesecker LG, et al. Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children. Clin Genet. 2014;85:120–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Clift KE, Halverson CM, Fiksdal AS, Kumbamu A, Sharp RR, McCormick JB. Patients’ views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing. Appl Transl Genom. 2015;4:38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gray SW, Park ER, Najita J, Martins Y, Traeger L, Bair E, et al. Oncologists’ and cancer patients’ views on whole-exome sequencing and incidental findings: results from the CanSeq study. Genet Med. 2016;18:1011–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kleiderman E, Knoppers BM, Fernandez CV, Boycott KM, Ouellette G, Wong-Rieger D, et al. Returning incidental findings from genetic research to children: views of parents of children affected by rare diseases. J Med Ethics. 2014;40:691–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sanderson SC, Linderman MD, Suckiel SA, Diaz GA, Zinberg RE, Ferryman K, et al. Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: baseline findings from the HealthSeq project. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Shahmirzadi L, Chao EC, Palmaer E, Parra MC, Tang S, Gonzalez KD. Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genet Med. 2014;16:395–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Krabbenborg L, Schieving J, Kleefstra T, Vissers LE, Willemsen MA, Veltman JA, et al. Evaluating a counselling strategy for diagnostic WES in paediatric neurology: an exploration of parents’ information and communication needs. Clin Genet. 2016;89:244–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Newson AJ. Whole genome sequencing in children: ethics, choice and deliberation. J Med Ethics. 2017;43:540–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Matthijs G, Souche E, Alders M, Corveleyn A, Eck S, Feenstra I, et al. Guidelines for diagnostic next-generation sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:2–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Snoeijen-Schouwenaars FM, van Ool JS, Verhoeven JS, van Mierlo P, Braakman HMH, Smeets EE, et al. Diagnostic exome sequencing in 100 consecutive patients with both epilepsy and intellectual disability. Epilepsia. 2019;60:155–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, Kahn JP, Cho MK, Clayton EW, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36:219–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Peeters H, Van Esch H, Dierickx K. The communication of secondary variants: interviews with parents whose children have undergone array-CGH testing. Clin Genet. 2014;86:207–16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Van Esch H, Dierickx K. Focus group discussions on secondary variants and next-generation sequencing technologies. Eur J Med Genet. 2015;58:249–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Driessnack M, Daack-Hirsch S, Downing N, Hanish A, Shah LL, Alasagheirin M, et al. The disclosure of incidental genomic findings: an “ethically important moment” in pediatric research and practice. J Community Genet. 2013;4:435–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Levenseller BL, Soucier DJ, Miller VA, Harris D, Conway L, Bernhardt BA. Stakeholders’ opinions on the implementation of pediatric whole exome sequencing: implications for informed consent. J Genet Couns. 2014;23:552–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, Lohn Z, Rousseau F, Friedman JM. “I want to know what’s in Pandora’s Box”: comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A:2519–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Anderson JA, Meyn MS, Shuman C, Zlotnik Shaul R, Mantella LE, Szego MJ, et al. Parents perspectives on whole genome sequencing for their children: qualified enthusiasm? J Med Ethics. 2017;43:535–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Fernandez CV, Bouffet E, Malkin D, Jabado N, O’Connell C, Avard D, et al. Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genet Med. 2014;16:633–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Payne K, Fargher EA, Roberts SA, Tricker K, Elliott RA, Ratcliffe J, et al. Valuing pharmacogenetic testing services: a comparison of patients’ and health care professionals’ preferences. Value Health. 2011;14:121–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Severin F, Hess W, Schmidtke J, Muhlbacher A, Rogowski W. Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2015;119:164–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Tabor HK, Brazg T, Crouch J, Namey EE, Fullerton SM, Beskow LM, et al. Parent perspectives on pediatric genetic research and implications for genotype-driven research recruitment. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6:41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Fanos JH. Developmental tasks of childhood and adolescence: implications for genetic testing. Am J Med Genet 1997;71:22–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ambrosini A, Quinlivan R, Sansone VA, Meijer I, Schrijvers G, Tibben A, et al. “Be an ambassador for change that you would like to see”: a call to action to all stakeholders for co-creation in healthcare and medical research to improve quality of life of people with a neuromuscular disease. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14:126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lochmuller H, Ambrosini A, van Engelen B, Hansson M, Tibben A, Breukel A, et al. The position of neuromuscular patients in shared decision making. Report from the 235th ENMC workshop: Milan, Italy, January 19-20, 2018. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2019;6:161–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Dondorp W, Bolt I, Tibben A, Cornelis C, De Wert G, Summeren M. ‘We should view him as an individual’. The role of the child’s future autonomy in shared decision-making about unsolicited findings in pediatric WES. Health Care Anal. 2021.

  42. 42.

    Bredenoord AL, de Vries MC, van Delden H. The right to an open future concerning genetic information. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14:21–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research was funded by ZonMw—the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (grant no. 70-73000-98-047).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aad Tibben.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tibben, A., Dondorp, W., Cornelis, C. et al. Parents, their children, whole exome sequencing and unsolicited findings: growing towards the child’s future autonomy. Eur J Hum Genet (2021).

Download citation


Quick links