Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data

Research biobank participants attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and health record confidentiality

Understanding attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality is important in guiding policies regarding special protections for genetic/genomic information stored in electronic health records (EHR). The goals of this study were to determine biobank participants' attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality and whether those attitudes are related to their preference for return of genetic results. An online questionnaire was distributed to patients with an EHR and email address who had previously enrolled in the BioMe Biobank program. Most participants responded with similar levels of concern in scenarios involving the use of genetic information and other types of health information, suggesting that participants want similar protections for genetic data as other types of sensitive health information, particularly mental health and family history records. Of the 829 respondents, the majority had genetic exceptionalist views when directly asked, even though their concerns about confidentiality were similar for their genetic information and other health information. There were no differences in genetic exceptionalist views between those who had a documented preference to have genetic results returned and those who did not. Notably, for many participants, their recall of preference did not align with their documented preference. The majority of biobank participants were most anxious about the loss of confidentiality for genetic, mental health, and family history information, indicating that certain types of health information are considered more "sensitive" than others. These findings suggest the importance of assuring people participating in biobank research that the confidentiality of their "sensitive" health information is secured.

Patient and Public Willingness to Share Personal Health Data for Third-Party or Secondary Uses: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

International advances in information communication, eHealth, and other digital health technologies have led to significant expansions in the collection and analysis of personal health data. However, following a series of high-profile data sharing scandals and the emergence of COVID-19, critical exploration of public willingness to share personal health data remains limited, particularly for third-party or secondary uses.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to explore factors that affect public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses.

METHODS

A systematic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and SocINDEX) was conducted with review findings analyzed using inductive-thematic analysis and synthesized using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Of the 13,949 papers identified, 135 were included. Factors most commonly identified as a barrier to data sharing from a public perspective included data privacy, security, and management concerns. Other factors found to influence willingness to share personal health data included the type of data being collected (ie, perceived sensitivity); the type of user requesting their data to be shared, including their perceived motivation, profit prioritization, and ability to directly impact patient care; trust in the data user, as well as in associated processes, often established through individual choice and control over what data are shared with whom, when, and for how long, supported by appropriate models of dynamic consent; the presence of a feedback loop; and clearly articulated benefits or issue relevance including valued incentivization and compensation at both an individual and collective or societal level.

CONCLUSIONS

There is general, yet conditional public support for sharing personal health data for third-party or secondary use. Clarity, transparency, and individual control over who has access to what data, when, and for how long are widely regarded as essential prerequisites for public data sharing support. Individual levels of control and choice need to operate within the auspices of assured data privacy and security processes, underpinned by dynamic and responsive models of consent that prioritize individual or collective benefits over and above commercial gain. Failure to understand, design, and refine data sharing approaches in response to changeable patient preferences will only jeopardize the tangible benefits of data sharing practices being fully realized.

What are the bottlenecks to health data sharing in Switzerland? An interview study

BACKGROUND

While health data sharing for research purposes is strongly supported in principle, it can be challenging to implement in practice. Little is known about the actual bottlenecks to health data sharing in Switzerland.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to assess the obstacles to Swiss health data sharing, including legal, ethical and logistical bottlenecks.

METHODS

We identified 37 key stakeholders in data sharing via the Swiss Personalised Health Network ecosystem, defined as being an expert on sharing sensitive health data for research purposes at a Swiss university hospital (or a Swiss disease cohort) or being a stakeholder in data sharing at a public or private institution that uses such data. We conducted semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed, translated when necessary, and de-identified. The entire research team discussed the transcripts and notes taken during each interview before an inductive coding process occurred.

RESULTS

Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted (primarily in English) with 17 individuals representing lawyers, data protection officers, ethics committee members, scientists, project managers, bioinformaticians, clinical trials unit members, and biobank stakeholders. Most respondents felt that it was not the actual data transfer that was the bottleneck but rather the processes and systems around it, which were considered time-intensive and confusing. The templates developed by the Swiss Personalised Health Network and the Swiss General Consent process were generally felt to have streamlined processes significantly. However, these logistics and data quality issues remain practical bottlenecks in Swiss health data sharing. Areas of legal uncertainty include privacy laws when sharing data internationally, questions of "who owns the data", inconsistencies created because the Swiss general consent is perceived as being implemented differently across different institutions, and definitions and operationalisation of anonymisation and pseudo-anonymisation. Many participants desired to create a "culture of data sharing" and to recognise that data sharing is a process with many steps, not an event, that requires sustainability efforts and personnel. Some participants also stressed a desire to move away from data sharing and the current privacy focus towards processes that facilitate data access.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitating a data access culture in Switzerland may require legal clarifications, further education about the process and resources to support data sharing, and further investment in sustainable infrastructureby funders and institutions.

Measuring the willingness to share personal health information: a systematic review

Background

In the age of digitalization and big data, personal health information is a key resource for health care and clinical research. This study aimed to analyze the determinants and describe the measurement of the willingness to disclose personal health information.

Methods

The study conducted a systematic review of articles assessing willingness to share personal health information as a primary or secondary outcome. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis protocol. English and Italian peer-reviewed research articles were included with no restrictions for publication years. Findings were narratively synthesized.

Results

The search strategy found 1,087 papers, 89 of which passed the screening for title and abstract and the full-text assessment.

Conclusion

No validated measurement tool has been developed for willingness to share personal health information. The reviewed papers measured it through surveys, interviews, and questionnaires, which were mutually incomparable. The secondary use of data was the most important determinant of willingness to share, whereas clinical and socioeconomic variables had a slight effect. The main concern discouraging data sharing was privacy, although good data anonymization and the high perceived benefits of sharing may overcome this issue.

Context matters in genomic data sharing: a qualitative investigation into responses from the Australian public

BACKGROUND

Understanding public attitudes to genomic data sharing is widely seen as key in shaping effective governance. However, empirical research in this area often fails to capture the contextual nuances of diverse sharing practices and regulatory concerns encountered in real-world genomic data sharing. This study aimed to investigate factors affecting public attitudes to data sharing through responses to diverse genomic data sharing scenarios.

METHODS

A set of seven empirically validated genomic data sharing scenarios reflecting a range of current practices in Australia was used in an open-ended survey of a diverse sample of the Australian public (n = 243). Qualitative responses were obtained for each of the scenarios. Respondents were each allocated one scenario and asked five questions on: whether (and why/not) they would share data; what sharing would depend on; benefits and risks of sharing; risks they were willing to accept if sharing was certain to result in benefits; and what could increase their comfort about sharing and any potential risk. A thematic analysis was used to examine responses, coded and validated by two blinded coders.

RESULTS

Participants indicated an overall high willingness to share genomic information, although this willingness varied considerably between different scenarios. A strong perception of benefits was reported as the foremost explanation for willingness to share across all scenarios. The high degree of convergence in the perception of benefits and the types of benefits identified by participants across all the scenarios suggests that the differentiation in intention to share may lie in perceptions of risk, which showed distinct patterns within and between the different scenarios. Some concerns were shared strongly across all scenarios, particularly benefit sharing, future use, and privacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative responses provide insight into popular assumptions regarding existing protections, conceptions of privacy, and which trade-offs are generally acceptable. Our results indicate that public attitudes and concerns are heterogeneous and influenced by the context in which sharing takes place. The convergence of key themes such as benefits and future uses point to core concerns that must be centred in regulatory responses to genomic data sharing.

Australian public perspectives on genomic data storage and sharing: Benefits, concerns and access preferences

Diagnostic genomic sequencing generates unprecedented amounts of data. In addition to its primary use, this data could be used for a wide range of secondary purposes, including research and informing future healthcare for the data donor. These opportunities may require data to be shared with third parties. Although effective data sharing relies on public support, there are barriers which may prevent people from choosing to donate their genomic data and surprisingly few studies explore these barriers in depth. To address this need, this study aimed to qualitatively explore the Australian public's views and preferences for storing and sharing genomic data. Online focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive content analysis. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted with 39 members of the Australian public ranging from 18 to 67 years of age. Participants were mostly supportive of genomic data being stored and shared for secondary purposes, recognising the potential benefits for individual health and wider medical research. However, some concerns were identified. Participants felt genomic data was particularly sensitive information, and raised the potential for discrimination, stigma, and other malicious uses of such data. Concerns for privacy and security of the data were also prevalent. Trustworthiness of data users was important when considering who genomic data should be shared with. Although participants were supportive of data being freely available to health professionals and researchers, they were opposed to insurance companies and employers accessing the data. There was greater controversy around sharing data with law enforcement and pharmaceutical companies. Participants recognised both benefits and harms to sharing with law enforcement. They were also cognizant of the dual purpose of pharmaceutical companies as both research and profit-driven organisations. Finally, participants expressed varying perspectives about sharing genomic data with family members, yet most agreed that explicit consent from the data donor should be required to share their information with relatives. This study highlighted several of the Australian public's perceived barriers and motivators for the storage and sharing of genomic data. Participants recognised both the benefits of collecting, storing and sharing such data widely but also the potential for harm from data misuse. While public acceptance of such endeavours is required to maximise the volume of data made available, the concerns around data access and security need to be addressed before this can occur. These findings also highlight the nuance and ethical complexity of decisions about who we should allow to access donated genomic data. These perspectives will be essential in helping to shape the way large-scale genomic data storage and sharing is developed and implemented in Australia, and internationally.

Patients and Members of the Public’s Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Secondary use of health data has reached unequaled potential to improve health systems governance, knowledge, and clinical care. Transparency regarding this secondary use is frequently cited as necessary to address deficits in trust and conditional support and to increase patient awareness.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review the current published literature to identify different stakeholders' perspectives and recommendations on what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how and in which situations.

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases to locate a broad range of studies published in English or French until November 2022. We included articles reporting a stakeholder's perspective or recommendations of what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how or in which situations. Data were collected and analyzed with an iterative thematic approach using NVivo.

RESULTS

Overall, 178 articles were included in this scoping review. The type of information can be divided into generic and specific content. Generic content includes information on governance and regulatory frameworks, technical aspects, and scientific aims. Specific content includes updates on the use of one's data, return of results from individual tests, information on global results, information on data sharing, and how to access one's data. Recommendations on how to communicate the information focused on frequency, use of various supports, formats, and wording. Methods for communication generally favored broad approaches such as nationwide publicity campaigns, mainstream and social media for generic content, and mixed approaches for specific content including websites, patient portals, and face-to-face encounters. Content should be tailored to the individual as much as possible with regard to length, avoidance of technical terms, cultural competence, and level of detail. Finally, the review outlined 4 major situations where communication was deemed necessary: before a new use of data, when new test results became available, when global research results were released, and in the advent of a breach in confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights how different types of information and approaches to communication efforts may serve as the basis for achieving greater transparency. Governing bodies could use the results: to elaborate or evaluate strategies to educate on the potential benefits; to provide some knowledge and control over data use as a form of reciprocity; and as a condition to engage citizens and build and maintain trust. Future work is needed to assess which strategies achieve the greatest outreach while striking a balance between meeting information needs and use of resources.

Public willingness to participate in population DNA screening in Australia

Background

Population-based DNA screening for medically actionable conditions has the potential to improve public health by enabling early detection, treatment and/or prevention; however, public attitudes and willingness to participate in DNA screening have not been well investigated.

Methods

We presented a scenario to members of the Australian public, randomly selected from the electoral roll via the Australian Survey of Societal Attitudes, describing an adult population DNA screening programme currently under development, to detect risk of medically actionable cancers and heart disease. We asked questions regarding willingness to participate and pay, preferred delivery methods and concerns.

Results

We received 1060 completed questionnaires (response rate 23%, mean age 58 years). The vast majority (>92%) expressed willingness to undertake DNA screening. When asked about the optimal age of screening, most (56%) favoured early adulthood (aged 18–40 years) rather than at birth or childhood. Many respondents would prefer samples and data be kept for re-screening (36%) or research use (43%); some preferred samples to be destroyed (21%). Issues that decrease likelihood of participation included privacy (75%) and insurance (86%) implications.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates public willingness to participate in population DNA screening in Australia, and identifies barriers to participation, to be addressed in the design of screening programmes. Results are informing the development of a pilot national DNA screening programme.

Perceptions of pharmacogenetic exceptionalism and the implications for clinical management within an electronic health record

Genetic exceptionalism refers to a concept that genetic information is distinct from other health data and therefore should have additional safety guards in place. The objective of this study was to establish perceptions of pharmacogenetic (PGx) exceptionalism and genetic information privacy and management within the electronic health record (EHR) from individuals who attended a PGx-focused conference. A 47-question survey was distributed to 370 attendees at a PGx conference in September 2020. The survey assessed demographics, professional characteristics, perceptions of PGx exceptionalism, knowledge of genetic laws and regulations, and EHR management of PGx information. Of the 370 participants invited to take the survey, 30% (n = 110) responded. Most respondents were pharmacists with postgraduate training (76.2%, n = 48). When asked whether PGx information was exceptional, 44% of respondents agreed while 32% disagreed. Agreement with PGx exceptionalism was associated most with respondents' lack of familiarity or knowledge with PGx. Over two-thirds (67%) felt that all members of the healthcare team should be able to access their patients' PGx information without restriction in the EHR. This study identified a lack of unanimity in the perception of PGx exceptionalism and the management of PGx information within the EHR across attendees of a PGx conference. Describing the perception of accessibility of PGx information within the EHR is important to ascertain for designing privacy-related technology, institutional management policies, and legal regulations as this area in genetics is increasingly being implemented into clinical care and clinical standards of care need to be established.

Motives for withdrawal of participation in biobanking and participants' willingness to allow linkages of their data

Data repositories, like research biobanks, seek to optimise the number of responding participants while simultaneously attempting to increase the amount of data donated per participant. Such efforts aim to increase the repository’s value for its uses in medical research to contribute to improve health care, especially when data linkage is permitted by participants. We investigated individuals’ motives for participating in such projects and potential reasons for their withdrawal from participation in a population-based biobank. In addition, we analysed how these motives were related to various characteristics of the participants and their willingness to permit data linkage to their personal data for research. These questions were explored using a sample of participants in the Dutch Lifelines biobank (n = 2615). Our results indicated that motives for participation and withdrawal were premised on benefits or harm to society and to the individuals themselves. Although general values and trust both played key roles in participation, potential withdrawal and willingness to permit data linkage, they were differentially associated with motives for participation and withdrawal. These findings support and nuance previous findings by highlighting the distinctiveness and complexity of decision making regarding participation in or withdrawal from data donation. We suggest some new directions for improving recruitment, retention and safeguarding strategies in biobanking. In addition, our data provide initial evidence regarding how factors may relate with the probability that individuals will agree to data linkages, when controlling for their unique effects. Future research should further investigate how perceptions of harm and benefits may influence decision making on withdrawal of participation.

Beyond trust: Amplifying unheard voices on concerns about harm resulting from health data-sharing

Background:

The point of care in many health systems is increasingly a point of health data generation, data which may be shared and used in a variety of ways by a range of different actors.

Aim:

We set out to gather data about the perspectives on health data-sharing of people living in North East England who have been underrepresented within other public engagement activities and who are marginalized in society.

Methods:

Multi-site ethnographic fieldwork was carried out in the Teesside region of England over a 6-month period in 2019 as part of a large-scale health data innovation program called Connected Health Cities. Organizations working with marginalized groups were contacted to recruit staff, volunteers, and beneficiaries for participation in qualitative research. The data gathered were analyzed thematically and vignettes constructed to illustrate findings.

Results:

Previous encounters with health and social care professionals and the broader socio-political contexts of people’s lives shape the perspectives of people from marginalized groups about sharing of data from their health records. While many would welcome improved care, the risks to people with socially produced vulnerabilities must be appreciated by those advocating systems that share data for personalized medicine or other forms of data-driven care.

Conclusion:

Forms of innovation in medicine which rely on greater data-sharing may present risks to groups and individuals with existing vulnerabilities, and advocates of these innovations should address the lack of trustworthiness of those receiving data before asking that people trust new systems to provide health benefits.

Public trust and genomic medicine in Canada and the UK

Background: Genomic medicine could improve precise risk stratification, early prevention, and personalised treatment across a broad spectrum of disease. As this reality approaches, questions on the importance of public trust arise. The success of genomic medicine initiatives is influenced by the public's trust and willingness to engage. Specific social actors influential in the public's trust have been identified by the "Your DNA, Your Say" study, including doctors, researchers, and governments. This paper aims to identify and examine which specific social actors, if any, in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) are the most trustworthy and influential to engage the public in genomic medicine research. Methods: Using data from the 'Your DNA, Your Say' study, logistic regression models and Pearson's chi-square tests were conducted to explore trust in social actors across Canada and the UK. Results: The results demonstrate Canada and the UK significantly differ in public trust and willingness to donate. Non-profit researchers, domestic doctors, and personal doctors were identified to be the most influential and trustworthy social actors in Canada and the UK. Conclusions: The comparative results indicate that both countries would benefit from engaging the public through doctors and non-profit researchers. The UK could additionally support public trust by engaging with the public through the National Health Service. However, the results suggest that whilst public trust is significant, it may be neither necessary nor sufficient in influencing willingness to donate. Future research could do well to investigate how the importance of public trust compares in countries with lower public trust.

Public trust and genomic medicine in Canada and the UK

Background: Genomic medicine could improve precise risk stratification, early prevention, and personalised treatment across a broad spectrum of disease. As this reality approaches, questions on the importance of public trust arise. The success of genomic medicine initiatives is influenced by the public's trust and willingness to engage. Specific social actors influential in the public's trust have been identified by the "Your DNA, Your Say" study, including doctors, researchers, and governments. This paper aims to identify and examine which specific social actors, if any, in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) are the most trustworthy and influential to engage the public in genomic medicine. Methods: Using data from the 'Your DNA, Your Say' study, logistic regression models and Pearson's chi-square tests were conducted to explore trust in social actors across Canada and the UK. Results: The results demonstrate Canada and the UK significantly differ in public trust and willingness to donate. Non-profit researchers, domestic doctors, and personal doctors were identified to be the most influential and trustworthy social actors in Canada and the UK. Conclusions: The comparative results indicate that both countries would benefit from engaging the public through doctors and non-profit researchers. The UK could additionally support public trust by engaging with the public through the National Health Service. However, the results suggest that whilst public trust is significant, it may be neither necessary nor sufficient in influencing willingness to donate. Future research could do well to investigate how the importance of public trust compares in countries with lower public trust.

The Belgian DNA Debate: An Online Deliberative Platform on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues of Genomics

INTRODUCTION

Genomics is increasingly being implemented in the society. To fully realise this implementation, citizens should be consulted about their perspectives on genomics and its associated ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) to enable them to co-create with experts a society-supported framework in genomics.

METHODS

A Belgian online DNA debate was organised, where 1,127 citizens contributed to its deliberative platform.

RESULTS

Contributors expressed a dual attitude towards the societal use of genomic information throughout 5 main themes. Firstly, contributors considered DNA to have a significant but nondeterministic impact on identity. The second theme describes how genomic information may guide people's behaviour but has unfavourable effects such as psychological distress. The third theme covers the tension between a genomics-based responsibility and the rejection of genetic discrimination. The fourth theme depicts how genomic information may be useful for the common good and society at large but how, nevertheless, it should be people's free choice to use this information. In the fifth theme, contributors expressed both willingness to share their data and caution towards the harm and abuses this may engender. Finally, contributors formulated some recommendations for the responsible implementation of genomics.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The attitude of contributors towards the societal use of genomic information and its ELSI aligns with a soft precautionary approach, in which prudence and the weighing of different values should result in protective measures against potential risks and harms. Further societal implementation of genomics should include these values and concerns.

Genetic information, insurance and a pluralistic approach to justice

The use of genetic testing has prompted the question of whether insurance companies should be able to use predictive genetic test results (GTRs) in their risk classification of clients. While some jurisdictions have passed legislation to prohibit this practice, the UK has instead adopted a voluntary code of practice that merely restricts the ways in which insurance companies may use GTRs. Critics have invoked various theories of justice to argue that this approach is unfair. However, as well as sometimes relying on somewhat idealised assumptions, these analyses have tended to invoke theories that have wide-ranging and highly revisionary implications for insurance. Moreover, they fail to adequately engage with a conception of justice that plausibly undergirds the status quo approach to insurance in the UK. I argue that it is a mistake to simply invoke a single contestable theory in seeking to develop sound policy on the use of GTRs in insurance. To that end, in this paper, I outline three plausible principles of justice that policy on this issue ought to balance: A principle of equity, a principle of equal access and a principle of need. In doing so, I shall offer a pluralist justice-based argument in support of the spirit, if not the precise letter, of the UK approach.

Public willingness to participate in personalized health research and biobanking: A large-scale Swiss survey

This paper reports survey findings on the Swiss public's willingness, attitudes, and concerns regarding personalized health research participation by providing health information and biological material. The survey reached a sample of 15,106 Swiss residents, from which we received 5,156 responses (34.1% response rate). The majority of respondents were aware of research using human biological samples (71.0%) and held a positive opinion towards this type of research (62.4%). Of all respondents, 53.6% indicated that they would be willing to participate in a personalized health research project. Willingness to participate was higher in younger, higher educated, non-religious respondents with a background in the health sector. Respondents were more willing to provide 'traditional' types of health data, such as health questionnaires, blood or biological samples, as opposed to social media or app-related data. All respondents valued the return of individual research results, including risk for diseases for which no treatment is available. Our findings highlight that alongside general positive attitudes towards personalized health research using data and samples, respondents have concerns about data privacy and re-use. Concerns included potential discrimination, confidentiality breaches, and misuse of data for commercial or marketing purposes. The findings of this large-scale survey can inform Swiss research institutions and assist policymakers with adjusting practices and developing policies to better meet the needs and preferences of the public. Efforts in this direction could focus on research initiatives engaging in transparent communication, education, and engagement activities, to increase public understanding and insight into data sharing activities, and ultimately strengthen personalized health research efforts.

Citizens' conceptions of the genome: Related values and practical implications in a citizen forum on the use of genomic information

BACKGROUND

The development of large data sets, including genomic data, coupled with rapid advances in personalized medicine where citizens increasingly face complex choices about the use of their genomic information implies that citizens are essential stakeholders in genomics. They should be engaged in the ethical, legal and societal issues to produce a framework that fosters trust and allows them to guide the technology based on their values.

OBJECTIVE

This article highlights that citizens' conceptions of the human genome inform about and make sense of their main values regarding the use of genomic information, which is critical for policymakers, experts and stakeholders to understand to maintain the public support in genomics.

METHOD

Through an inductive thematic approach, we reanalysed data collected for the Belgian citizen forum, which aimed to produce recommendations for the Ministry of Public Health and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Citizens expressed four conceptions of the genome that determined which uses of genomic information they supported: the most intimate part of individuals; 'I am more than my genome'; the individual's property vs the common good; and uncertainty and fear.

CONCLUSION

Diversity in their conceptions reveals remaining conflicts of values among citizens, mainly regarding a conception of the genome as an individual property or a common good. However, despite differing conceptions, shared values emerged such as solidarity, privacy, no genetic discrimination and the right to an open future, where individual and common interests coexist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The panel of the citizen forum consisted of 32 citizens.

Sharing genomic data from clinical testing with researchers: public survey of expectations of clinical genomic data management in Queensland, Australia

Background

There has been considerable investment and strategic planning to introduce genomic testing into Australia’s public health system. As more patients’ genomic data is being held by the public health system, there will be increased requests from researchers to access this data. It is important that public policy reflects public expectations for how genomic data that is generated from clinical tests is used. To inform public policy and discussions around genomic data sharing, we sought public opinions on using genomic data contained in medical records for research purposes in the Australian state of Queensland.

Methods

A total of 1494 participants completed an online questionnaire between February and May 2019. Participants were adults living in Australia. The questionnaire explored participant preferences for sharing genomic data or biological samples with researchers, and concerns about genomic data sharing.

Results

Most participants wanted to be given the choice to have their genomic data from medical records used in research. Their expectations on whether and how often they needed to be approached for permission on using their genomic data, depended on whether the data was identifiable or anonymous. Their willingness to sharing data for research purposes depended on the type of information being shared, what type of research would be undertaken and who would be doing the research. Participants were most concerned with genomics data sharing that could lead to discrimination (insurance and employment), data being used for marketing, data security, or commercial use.

Conclusions

Most participants were willing to share their genomic data from medical records with researchers, as long as permission for use was sought. However, the existing policies related to this process in Queensland do not reflect participant expectations for how this is achieved, particularly with anonymous genomics data. This inconsistency may be addressed by process changes, such as inclusion of research in addition to clinical consent or general research data consent programs.

Citizens' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Educational Needs in the Field of Omics Sciences: A Systematic Literature Review

Background: The huge development of omics sciences is changing the classical medical approach and making new technologies available. In this context, education of citizens is essential to allow appropriate decisions about their own health. Hence, we aimed to summarize existing literature regarding citizens' knowledge, attitudes, and educational needs on omics sciences. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) using Pubmed, ISI Web of Science, and Embase databases. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review required that the studies investigated knowledge, attitudes, or educational needs regarding omics sciences among the general population. Results: We included 54 studies, published between 2006 and 2020. Most of the included studies (72%) investigated citizens' knowledge, half of them (56%) attitudes, and 20% educational needs in the field of omics sciences, while 52% investigated attitudes and perceptions about genetic and/or omics tests. Most studies (64%) reported a limited knowledge level among citizens, even though most (59%) reported participants understood the benefits of the use of omics sciences into medicine. As for omics tests, a controversial opinion toward their use into practice was reported among citizens. Most of the studies (82%) investigating citizens' educational needs highlighted a clear gap to be filled. Conclusions: Our SLR summarizes current knowledge on citizens' literacy, attitudes, and educational needs on omics science, underlining the need for strengthening public engagement on this topic. Further research is needed, however, to identify appropriate methods and models to achieve such an improvement.

Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data?

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.

Willingness to donate genomic and other medical data: results from Germany

This paper reports findings from Germany-based participants in the “Your DNA, Your Say” study, a collaborative effort among researchers in more than 20 countries across the world to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate genomic and other personal data for use by others. Based on a representative sample of German residents (n = 1506) who completed the German-language version of the survey, we found that views of genetic exceptionalism were less prevalent in the German-language arm of the study than in the English-language arm (43% versus 52%). Also, people’s willingness to make their data available for research was lower in the German than in the English-language samples of the study (56% versus 67%). In the German sample, those who were more familiar with genetics, and those holding views of genetic exceptionalism were more likely to be willing to donate data than others. We explain these findings with reference to the important role that the “right of informational self-determination” plays in German public discourse. Rather than being a particularly strict interpretation of privacy in the sense of a right to be left alone, the German understanding of informational self-determination bestows on each citizen the responsibility to carefully consider how their personal data should be used to protect important rights and to serve the public good.

Physicians' Attitudes and Ethical Obligations to Pharmacogenetic Testing

INTRODUCTION

Despite the increased utilization of pharmacogenetic (PGt) testing to guide drug therapy, little is known about the ethical challenges posed by the use of these genetic tools.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study aimed to address ethical issues related to ancillary genetic information, consent forms, and potential confidentiality breaches from physicians' perspectives. A questionnaire was administered to all practicing physicians working in KAUH.

RESULTS

Almost 49% and 65% of physicians were willing to recommend PGt testing for adult and pediatric patients, respectively. The findings showed that physicians attitudes towards the clinical utility of PGt testing became more preceptive. The majority (73.7%) indicated that PGt testing should not be treated as other routine laboratory tests. The finding also focused on potential conflicts regarding ancillary genetic information, in which 78.8% indicated that they would like to preserve the confidentiality and privacy of the patients and only 14.4% of physicians did not feel obligated to let patients know about any future risk that might be uncovered using PGt testing. The findings showed that collecting both verbal and written consents was imperative prior to testing. Seriousness and predictability of the diseases were reported to be legitimate circumstances that allow disclosure of genetic information.

DISCUSSION

Unless the field of PGt testing addresses the ethical challenges that might be encountered during PGt treatment, these issues might influence its acceptance in routine clinical settings. Establishing a minimal set of ethical standards may help emphasize the role of physicians and thus facilitate the implementation of PGt tests.