Dataset Information

Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Data on the modalities of disclosing genomic secondary findings (SFs) remain scarce. We explore cancer patients' and the general public's perspectives about disclosing genomic SFs and the modalities of such disclosure.

Methods

Sixty-one cancer patients (n = 29) and members of the public (n = 32) participated in eight focus groups in Montreal and Quebec City, Canada. They were asked to provide their perspectives of five fictitious vignettes related to medically actionable and non-actionable SFs. Two researchers used a codification framework to conduct a thematic content analysis of the group discussion transcripts.

Results

Cancer patients and members of the public were open to receive genomic SFs, considering their potential clinical and personal utility. They believed that the right to know or not and share or not such findings should remain the patient's decision. They thought that the disclosure of SFs should be made mainly in person by the prescribing clinician. Maintaining confidentiality when so requested and preventing genetic discrimination were considered essential.

Conclusion

Participants in this study welcomed the prospect of disclosing genomic SFs, as long as the right to choose to know or not to know is preserved. They called for the development of policies and practice guidelines that aim to protect genetic information confidentiality as well as the autonomy, physical and psychosocial wellbeing of patients and families.

SUBMITTER: Cleophat JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8236159 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are increasingly being conducted to efficiently generate evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Despite their growing acceptance, PCTs may involve a variety of ethical issues, including the management of pragmatic clinical trial-collateral findings (PCT-CFs), that is, information that emerges in PCTs that is unrelated to the primary research questions but may have implications for patients, clinicians, and health systems.ObjectiveWe sought to understand patients' views about PCT-CF disclosure, including how, by whom, and the nature and extent of information provided.DesignProspective, qualitative focus group study.ParticipantsFocus groups were conducted in Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX; and Seattle, WA (overall N = 66), during July and August 2019.ApproachAll groups discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the detection of a PCT-CF of contraindicated medications. Participants were asked about their reactions to the PCT-CF and issues related to its disclosure.Key resultsReactions to learning about the PCT-CF were mixed, ranging from fear of a significant health problem, anger that the contraindicated medications had gone unnoticed and/or for being included in research without their permission, to gratitude for the information. Preferences for how such disclosures are made varied but were driven by several consistent desires, namely minimizing patient harm and anxiety and demonstrating trust and respect. Many wanted their treating clinician to be informed of the PCT-CF so that they would be prepared to answer patients' questions and to discuss treatment options.ConclusionsThe detection of PCT-CFs is likely to increase with further expansion of PCTs. As such, clinicians will undoubtedly become involved in the management of PCT-CFs. Our data illustrate some of the challenges clinicians may face when their patients are informed of a PCT-CF and the need to develop guidance for disclosing PCT-CFs in ways that align with patients' preferences and values.

Project description:IntroductionGeneral practice data, particularly when combined with hospital and other health service data through data linkage, are increasingly being used for quality assurance, evaluation, health service planning and research. In this study, we explored community views on sharing general practice data for secondary purposes, including research, to establish what concerns and conditions need to be addressed in the process of developing a social licence to support such use.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach with focus groups (November-December 2021), followed by a cross-sectional survey (March-April 2022).ResultsThe participants in this study strongly supported sharing general practice data with the clinicians responsible for their care, and where there were direct benefits for individual patients. Over 90% of survey participants (N = 2604) were willing to share their general practice information to directly support their health care, that is, for the primary purpose of collection. There was less support for sharing data for secondary purposes such as research and health service planning (36% and 45% respectively in broad agreement) or for linking general practice data to data in the education, social services and criminal justice systems (30%-36%). A substantial minority of participants were unsure or could not see how benefits would arise from sharing data for secondary purposes. Participants were concerned about the potential for privacy breaches, discrimination and data misuse and they wanted greater transparency and an opportunity to consent to data release.ConclusionThe findings of this study suggest that the public may be more concerned about sharing general practice data for secondary purposes than they are about sharing data collected in other settings. Sharing general practice data more broadly will require careful attention to patient and public concerns, including focusing on the factors that will sustain trust and legitimacy in general practice and GPs.Patient and public contributionMembers of the public were participants in the study. Data produced from their participation generated study findings.Clinical trial registrationNot applicable.