Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings.
Ontology highlight
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
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Many countries and organizations have promoted the disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI). However, reporting frequency and quality of DPSI fall short of patient and caregiver' expectations. In this study, we examined the attitudes toward DPSI of the general public representing the Korean population. METHODS:Survey questions were developed based on a previous systematic review and qualitative research. Face-to-face interviews using paper-based questionnaires were conducted. We explored attitudes toward DPSI in various scenarios and opinions on methods to facilitate DPSI. RESULTS:Almost all participants answered that it is necessary to disclose major errors (99.9%) and near misses (93.3%). A total of 96.6% (675/699) agreed that "DPSI will lead physicians to pay more attention to patient safety in the future," and 94.1% (658/699) agreed that "DPSI will make patients and their caregivers trust the physician more." Although 79.7% (558/700) agreed that "apology law will limit patients' ability to prove physicians' negligence," 95.4% (668/700) agreed with "I support the introduction of apology law." Moreover, 90.6% (634/700) agreed with "I support the introduction of mandatory DPSI." CONCLUSIONS:This study showed the overwhelmingly positive attitude of the public toward DPSI. The positive opinion of the public about apology law suggests the possibility of introducing the disclosure policy coupled with legislation of apology law in South Korea.
| S-EPMC7046138 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7728860 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10869884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Technological advances have seen the offer of genome sequencing becoming part of mainstream medical practice. Research has elicited patient and health professional views on the ethical issues genome sequencing raises, however, we know little about the general public's views. These views offer an insight into people's faith in such technologies, informing discussion regarding the approach to consent in clinic. We aimed to garner public views regarding genome sequencing, incidental findings (IFs), and sharing genetic information with relatives. Participants (n?=?1954) from the British general public completed a survey, distributed via email. Overall, the public had a positive view of genomic sequencing, choosing 'informative' as the most popular word (52%) and 'family legacy' as the most popular analogy (33%) representing genomic sequencing for them. Fifty-three percent agree that their relative had the right to be told about genetic information relevant to them. Fifty-four percent would expect to be told about IFs whether they had asked for them or not. Clinical practice needs to acknowledge these perspectives and expectations in order to facilitate meaningful discussion during the consent process for genomic tests. We suggest that: (a) optimistic perspectives on the usefulness of genomic tests need to be tempered by discussion in clinic about the likelihood that genomic results might be uninformative, uncertain or unexpected; (b) discussions regarding the familial nature of results are needed before testing: the majority of patients will welcome this and any concerns can be explored further; and (c) a wider discussion is required regarding the consent approach for genomic testing.
| S-EPMC6974627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand public attitudes about and recommendations to address antibiotic overuse by employing public deliberation (a method for eliciting informed input on value-laden issues).Data sources/study settingParticipants in 24 Community Deliberation groups (CD; n = 263), four Citizens' Panel groups (CP; n = 96), and a control group (n = 348). Data were collected in 2012 in four U.S.LocationsStudy designUsing mixed methods, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from a randomized control trial.Data collection/extraction methodsUsing pre/postdeliberation surveys, we compared CD and CP participant attitude changes regarding antibiotic use to the control group. We analyzed deliberation transcripts using qualitative techniques to provide context for survey results.Principal findingsCompared to control group participants, CD and CP participants had a larger postdeliberation shift in attitudes toward support of government limits on when doctors can prescribe antibiotics. Participants described unawareness about antibiotic overuse and called for education. When discussing prescription limits, participants debated tensions between preserving patient/doctor autonomy and protecting society from antibiotic-related harms. Participants saw patient, physician, and government roles in antibiotic stewardship policies/programs.ConclusionWhen informed about individual and social consequences of antibiotic overuse, patients may be more receptive to antibiotic prescription limits. Community-physician-government partnerships are needed to create solutions.
| S-EPMC6863223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Secondary genomic findings are increasingly being returned to individuals as opportunistic screening results. A secondary finding offers the chance to identify and mitigate disease that may otherwise be unrecognized in an individual. As a form of screening, secondary findings must be considered differently from sequencing results in a diagnostic setting. For these reasons, clinicians should employ an evaluation and long-term management strategy that accounts for both the increased disease risk associated with a secondary finding and the lower positive predictive value of a screening result compared to an indication-based testing result. Here we describe an approach to the clinical evaluation and management of an individual who presents with a secondary finding. This approach enumerates five domains of evaluation-(1) medical history, (2) physical exam, (3) family history, (4) diagnostic phenotypic testing, and (5) variant correlation-through which a clinician can distinguish a molecular finding from a clinicomolecular diagnosis of genomic disease. With this framework, both geneticists and non-geneticist clinicians can optimize their ability to detect and mitigate genomic disease while avoiding the pitfalls of overdiagnosis. Our goal with this approach is to help clinicians translate secondary findings into meaningful recognition, treatment, and prevention of disease.
| S-EPMC7332641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveLittle is known about the general adult population's adoption of digital technology to support healthy lifestyle, especially when they are expected to take greater personal responsibility for managing their health and well-being today. The current qualitative study intended to gain an in-depth understanding of determinants of digital technology adoption for healthy lifestyle among community-dwelling adults in Singapore.DesignA qualitative study design, with thematic framework analysis was applied to develop themes from the data.SettingSemi-structured individual interviews were conducted with participants either face-to-face or online through a videoconferencing platform.Participants14 women and 16 men from the general population who were between the ages of 22 and 71 years.ResultsThree major themes were developed: (1) digitally disempowered (2) safety and perceived risks and harm; (3) cultural values and drives. Adoption of technology among the general population is needs-driven, and contingent on individual, technological and other cross-cultural contextual factors.ConclusionOur findings highlight there is no one solution which fits all individuals, emphasizing the challenges of catering to diverse groups to reduce barriers to adoption of digital technologies for healthy lifestyle. Digital guidance and training, as well as social influences, can motivate technological adoption in the population. However, technical problems as well as data security and privacy concerns should first be adequately addressed. This study provides rich cross-cultural insights and informs policy-making due to its alignment with government public health initiatives to promote healthy lifestyle.
| S-EPMC10545896 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most secondary genomic findings (SFs) fall in the scope of primary care practice. However, primary care providers' (PCPs) capacity to manage these findings is not well understood. We explored PCPs' views and experiences of managing SFs through a qualitative study. PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews about SFs from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. The interpretive descriptive methodology was used to analyze transcripts thematically through constant comparison. Fifteen family physicians from Ontario, Canada participated (ten females; 6-40 years in practice across community and academic settings). PCPs made sense of SFs through the lens of actionability: they actively looked for clinical relevance by considering a wide range of immediate and future actions, including referrals, genetic testing, screening, lifestyle changes, counseling about family planning, informing family members, future medication choice, increased vigilance/surveillance, and managing results in the electronic medical record. PCPs saw clinical actionability as the main benefit mitigating the potential harms of learning SFs, namely patient anxiety and unnecessary investigations. PCPs conceptualized actionability more broadly than it is traditionally defined in medical genetics. Further research will be needed to determine if PCPs' emphasis on actionability conflicts with patients' expectations of SFs and if it leads to overutilization of healthcare resources.
| S-EPMC9091250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.
| S-EPMC7609335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWhether and how to disclose secondary finding (SF) information to children is ethically debated. Some argue that genetic testing of minors should be limited to preserve the child's future autonomy. Others suggest that disclosure of SFs can occur if it is in the best interests of the child. However, the ways that parents conceptualize and weigh their child's future autonomy against the interests of their child and other family members are unknown.MethodsTo explore how parents understand SF disclosure in the context of their child and other family members' lives, we conducted semistructured interviews with 30 families (40 parents in total). All parents had children who were enrolled in a genetic sequencing protocol that returned results by default.ResultsWe found that parents did not routinely conceptualize SFs as distinctive health information. Rather parents saw this information as part of their child's overall health. To make decisions about disclosure, parents weighed their child's ability to understand the SF information and their other family member's need to know.ConclusionBecause most families desired SF information, we argue that disclosure of SF be reconceptualized to reflect the lived experiences of those who may receive this information.
| S-EPMC9643624 | biostudies-literature