The promises of genomic screening: building a governance infrastructure. Special issue: genetics and democracy

Stakeholders' Interest and Attitudes toward Genomic Medicine and Pharmacogenomics Implementation in the United Arab Emirates: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Mapping the power, interest, and stance of stakeholders is a cornerstone for genomic medicine implementation. In this study, we aimed at mapping the power/interest of various stakeholders in United Arab Emirates (UAE) and exploring their attitudes toward pressing health genomics aspects. The overarching aim of this study is to facilitate the construction of a road map for the full implementation of genomic medicine and pharmacogenomics in the UAE with potential applicability to many healthcare systems around the world.

METHODS

A qualitative approach using in-depth interview was employed. Heterogeneous stakeholders were identified by experts in the field. The analysis of the data was a hybrid of deductive and inductive approach using NVivo software for coding and analysis.

RESULTS

13 interviews were conducted. Following mapping the Mendelow's matrix, we categorized the stakeholders in UAE to promoter, latent, defender, and apathetic. Most of the interviewed stakeholders emphasized the clinical demand for genomic medicine in UAE. However, many of them were less inclined to articulate the need for pharmacogenomics at the moment. The majority of stakeholders in UAE were in favor of building infrastructure for better genetic services in the country. Stakeholder from an insurance sector had contradicting stance about the cost-effectiveness of genomic medicine; the majority were concerned with the legal and ethical aspects of genomic medicine and had an opposing stance on direct-to-consumer kits.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing the Mendelow's model will allow the systematic strategy for implementing genomic medicine in UAE. This can be achieved by engaging the key players (promoters and defenders) as well as engaging and satisfying the latent stakeholder.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening

This paper contains a joint ESHG/ASHG position document with recommendations regarding responsible innovation in prenatal screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). By virtue of its greater accuracy and safety with respect to prenatal screening for common autosomal aneuploidies, NIPT has the potential of helping the practice better achieve its aim of facilitating autonomous reproductive choices, provided that balanced pretest information and non-directive counseling are available as part of the screening offer. Depending on the health-care setting, different scenarios for NIPT-based screening for common autosomal aneuploidies are possible. The trade-offs involved in these scenarios should be assessed in light of the aim of screening, the balance of benefits and burdens for pregnant women and their partners and considerations of cost-effectiveness and justice. With improving screening technologies and decreasing costs of sequencing and analysis, it will become possible in the near future to significantly expand the scope of prenatal screening beyond common autosomal aneuploidies. Commercial providers have already begun expanding their tests to include sex-chromosomal abnormalities and microdeletions. However, multiple false positives may undermine the main achievement of NIPT in the context of prenatal screening: the significant reduction of the invasive testing rate. This document argues for a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, only following sound validation studies and a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant aspects. A further core message of this document is that in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health programme, governments and public health authorities should adopt an active role to ensure the responsible innovation of prenatal screening on the basis of ethical principles. Crucial elements are the quality of the screening process as a whole (including non-laboratory aspects such as information and counseling), education of professionals, systematic evaluation of all aspects of prenatal screening, development of better evaluation tools in the light of the aim of the practice, accountability to all stakeholders including children born from screened pregnancies and persons living with the conditions targeted in prenatal screening and promotion of equity of access.

Engaging Patients in Their Care Versus Obscurantism

PROBLEM

Could engaging patients in their care be a means to oppose obscurantism? Obscurantism is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the practice of keeping knowledge or understanding about something from people".

METHODS

This paper discusses the importance of promoting patient engagement and emphasizes that patients and healthcare providers are equally important stakeholders in health care.

FINDINGS

The discussion occurs in the context of hospital inpatient care as nurses play a critical role in patients' hospitalization experience, including engaging patients in their own care during hospital stays. Paternalism of healthcare providers is recognized as one of the main barriers to integrating the concepts of patient engagement and patient centeredness into every aspect of the care system. Promoting patient engagement is a two-way responsibility, and it requires the cooperation of both patients and healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

As scientists and healthcare providers, we have the duty to counter obscurantism by promoting understanding of the health of individual citizens and society at large. A culture change in healthcare systems toward being patient-centric and placing value on patient engagement is warranted, and this change must come from healthcare providers. Patient-centered tools that support patient engagement, patient portals, or personal health records are still needed.

Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer diagnostics using a regional stakeholder approach

AIMS

This paper describes our process to engage regional stakeholders for prioritizing comparative effectiveness research (CER) in cancer diagnostics. We also describe a novel methodology for incorporating stakeholder data and input to inform the objectives of selected CER studies.

MATERIALS & METHODS

As an integrated component to establishing the infrastructure for community-based CER on diagnostic technologies, we have assembled a regional stakeholder group composed of local payers, clinicians and state healthcare representatives to not only identify and prioritize CER topics most important to the western Washington State region, but also to inform the study design of selected research areas. A landscape analysis process combining literature searches, expert consultations and stakeholder discussions was used to identify possible CER topics in cancer diagnostics. Stakeholders prioritized the top topics using a modified Delphi/group-nominal method and a standardized evaluation criteria framework to determine a final selected CER study area. Implementation of the selected study was immediate due to a unique American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding structure involving the same researchers and stakeholders in both the prioritization and execution phases of the project. Stakeholder engagement was enhanced after study selection via a rapid analysis of a subset of payers' internal claims, coordinated by the research team, to obtain summary data of imaging patterns of use. Results of this preliminary analysis, which we termed an 'internal analysis,' were used to determine with the stakeholders the most important and feasible study objectives.

RESULTS

Stakeholders identified PET and MRI in cancers including breast, lung, lymphoma and colorectal as top priorities. In an internal analysis of breast cancer imaging, summary data from three payers demonstrated utilization rates of advanced imaging increased between 2002 and 2009 in the study population, with a great deal of variability in use between different health plans. Assessing whether breast MRI affects treatment decisions was the top breast cancer study objective selected by the stakeholders. There were other high-priority research areas including whether MRI use improved survival that were not deemed feasible with the length of follow-up time following MRI adoption.

CONCLUSION

Continuous stakeholder engagement greatly enhanced their enthusiasm for the project. We believe CER implementation will be more successful when undertaken by regional stakeholders.

From constraints to opportunities? Provision of psychosocial support in portuguese oncogenetic counseling services

Although available guidelines for familial cancer risk counseling clearly state the need to provide adequate psychosocial assessments and support, this feature of care is only available in part for individuals and families in oncogenetic counseling protocols in Portugal. The purpose of this study was to examine the psychosocial aspects of oncogenetic counseling provided by a sample of Portuguese genetics professionals. We sought to ascertain perceived need for the provision of psychosocial services and ways to enhance the psychosocial focus in service delivery. A qualitative study was designed; semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews were performed with 30 professionals from Portuguese healthcare institutions where oncogenetic counseling is offered. Findings suggest: current practice is aligned with the teaching model, with a mainly information-based focus; use of psychosocial counseling techniques and psychosocial support is limited throughout the genetic counseling timeline; there is a limited workforce of adequately trained psychosocial professionals, who are disadvantaged by structural and organizational constraints. These factors are considered to be serious barriers for psychosocial delivery. Development of multidisciplinary teams working in oncogenetics, and need for further counselling skills and training for genetics healthcare professionals were identified as priorities. Implications for practice and policy are discussed. Portuguese genetic counselors who have recently completed their training, may therefore contribute to enhanced psychosocial services delivery.

Genetics and democracy-what is the issue?

Current developments in genetics and genomics entail a number of changes and challenges for society as new knowledge and technology become common in the clinical setting and in society at large. The relationship between genetics and ethics has been much discussed during the last decade, while the relationship between genetics and the political arena-with terms such as rights, distribution, expertise, participation and democracy-has been less considered. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the connection between genetics and democracy. In order to do this, we delineate a notion of democracy that incorporates process as well as substance values. On the basis of this notion of democracy and on claims of democratisation in the science and technology literature, we argue for the importance of considering genetic issues in a democratic manner. Having established this connection between genetics and democracy, we discuss this relation in three different contexts where the relationship between genetics and democracy becomes truly salient: the role of expertise, science and public participation, and individual responsibility and distributive justice. As developments within genetics and genomics advance with great speed, the importance and use of genetic knowledge within society can be expected to grow. However, this expanding societal importance of genetics might ultimately involve, interact with, or even confront important aspects within democratic rule and democratic decision-making. Moreover, we argue that the societal importance of genetic development makes it crucial to consider not only decision-making processes, but also the policy outcomes of these processes. This argument supports our process and substance notion of democracy, which implies that public participation, as a process value, must be complemented with a focus on the effects of policy decisions on democratic values such as distributive justice.