'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine

How hereditary cancer risk disclosure to relatives is handled in practice - Patient perspectives from a Swedish cancer genetics clinic

OBJECTIVES

Hereditary cancer risks can be effectively managed if at-risk relatives enroll in surveillance and preventive care. Family-mediated risk disclosure has internationally been shown to be incomplete, selective and leave over a third of eligible at-risk individuals without access to genetic counseling. We explored patients handling of cancer risk information in practice.

METHODS

We conducted twelve semi-structured interviews with patients who had completed their genetic counseling and been asked to disclose risk information to relatives. Questions were designed to investigate lived experiences of communicating hereditary risk and focused on disclosure strategies, intrafamilial interactions and emotional responses.

RESULTS

Qualitative content analysis yielded five categories. These span personal fears, shared responsibilities, feeling of empowerment, innovative solutions and unmet needs. Patients put high value on collaboration with their genetic healthcare professionals but also solicited better overview of the counseling process and more personalized, case-tailored information.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results add novel insights about the practical strategies employed by genetic counselees and their motivations behind disclosing hereditary risk information to relatives.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A patient-centered cancer genetics care would clarify roles and responsibilities around risk disclosure, inform counselees about the process upfront and tailor information to offer case-specific data with the family's inheritance pattern explained.

Epistemic (in)justice, social identity and the Black Box problem in patient care

This manuscript draws on the moral norms arising from the nuanced accounts of epistemic (in)justice and social identity in relational autonomy to normatively assess and articulate the ethical problems associated with using AI in patient care in light of the Black Box problem. The article also describes how black-boxed AI may be used within the healthcare system. The manuscript highlights what needs to happen to align AI with the moral norms it draws on. Deeper thinking - from other backgrounds other than decolonial scholarship and relational autonomy - about the impact of AI on the human experience needs to be done to appreciate any other barriers that may exist. Future studies can take up this task.

Patients' perceptions and practices of informing relatives: a qualitative study within a randomised trial on healthcare-assisted risk disclosure

In a multicentre randomised controlled trial (DIRECT), we evaluate whether an intervention of providing direct letters from healthcare professionals to at-risk relatives (ARRs) affects the proportion of ARRs contacting a cancer genetics clinic, compared with patient-mediated disclosure alone (control). With the aim to explore how the patients included in the trial perceived and performed risk communication with their ARRs we analysed 17 semi-structured interviews with reflexive thematic analysis. All patients described that they disclosed risk information to all close relatives themselves. No integrity-related issues were reported by patients offered the intervention, and all of them accepted direct letters to all their ARRs. Patients' approaches to informing distant relatives were unpredictable and varied from contacting all distant ARRs, sharing the burden with the family, utilising the offer of sending direct letters, vaguely relying on others to inform, or postponing disclosure. Most patients limited their responsibility to the disclosure, although others wanted relatives to get genetic counselling or felt a need to provide additional information to the ARRs before ending their mission. We also identified confusion about the implication of test results, who needed risk information, and who was responsible for informing ARRs. These misunderstandings possibly also affected risk disclosure. This study revealed that despite accepting the direct letters to be sent to all relatives, the patients also contributed to risk disclosure in other ways. It was only in some situations to distant relatives that the healthcare-assisted letter was the only means of communication to the ARRs.

Direct letters to relatives at risk of hereditary cancer-study protocol for a multi-center randomized controlled trial of healthcare-assisted versus family-mediated risk disclosure at Swedish cancer genetics clinics (DIRECT-study)

BACKGROUND

The results of germline genetic testing for hereditary cancer are of importance not only to the patients under investigation but also to their genetic at-risk relatives. Standard care is to encourage the proband (first family member under investigation) to pass on this risk information to the relatives. Previous research suggests that with family-mediated disclosure, only about a third of at-risk relatives contact health care to receive genetic counselling. In some studies, complementing family-mediated risk disclosure with healthcare-assisted risk disclosure almost doubles the uptake of genetic counselling in at-risk relatives. In this study, we evaluate healthcare-assisted direct letters to relatives at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Probands are recruited from Swedish outpatient cancer genetics clinics to this two-arm randomized controlled trial. The study recruits probands with either a pathogenic variant in a cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) or probands with familial breast and colorectal cancer based on clinical and pedigree criteria. In both arms, probands receive standard care, i.e., are encouraged and supported to pass on information to relatives. In the intervention arm, the proband is also offered to have direct letters sent to the at-risk relatives. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of at-risk relatives contacting a Swedish cancer genetics clinic within 12 months of the proband receiving the test results.

DISCUSSION

This paper describes the protocol of a randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating a healthcare-assisted approach to risk disclosure by offering the probands to send direct letters to their at-risk relatives. The results of this study should be informative in the future development of risk disclosure practices in cancer genetics clinics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier NCT04197856 (pre-trial registration on December 13, 2019). Also registered at the website "RCC Cancerstudier i Sverige" as study #86719.

Interventions to support patients with sharing genetic test results with at-risk relatives: a synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM)

Whilst the finding of heritable susceptibility to disease was once relatively rare, mainstreaming of genetic testing has resulted in a steady increase. Patients are often encouraged to share their genetic test results with relevant relatives, but relatives may not receive this information, leaving them without knowledge of their own risk. Therefore, strategies to help communicate such information are important. This review aimed to explore the efficacy of existing interventions to improve the sharing of genetic test results. A synthesis without meta-analysis design was used. A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and AMED was conducted, and five studies were identified worldwide. Data were extracted for each study regarding study aim, participant characteristics, condition, intervention details, comparison, study duration, outcome measures, theory and behaviour change techniques used. Limited efficacy and application of theory was found. Knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy were not increased in any intervention. No gender differences in communication behaviour were encountered in interventions that recruited men and women. Two studies reported an evaluation of acceptability, which showed that the interventions were well received by patients and health professionals. No study reported the involvement of the target population in any phase of intervention development. Given the lack of health psychology-informed interventions in this area of clinical genetics, we recommend genetic health professionals, health psychologists and patients collaborate on all stages of future interventions that involve the cascading of genetic health information within families. We also provide guidance regarding use of theory and intervention elements for future intervention development.

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.

Ethical preparedness in health research and care: the role of behavioural approaches

BACKGROUND

Public health scholars have long called for preparedness to help better negotiate ethical issues that emerge during public health emergencies. In this paper we argue that the concept of ethical preparedness has much to offer other areas of health beyond pandemic emergencies, particularly in areas where rapid technological developments have the potential to transform aspects of health research and care, as well as the relationship between them. We do this by viewing the ethical decision-making process as a behaviour, and conceptualising ethical preparedness as providing a health research/care setting that can facilitate the promotion of this behaviour. We draw on an implementation science and behaviour change model, COM-B, to demonstrate that to be ethically prepared requires having the capability (ability), opportunity, and motivation (willingness) to work in an ethically prepared way.

METHODS

We use two case examples from our empirical research-one pandemic and one non-pandemic related-to illustrate how our conceptualisation of ethical preparedness can be applied in practice. The first case study was of the UK NHSX COVID-19 contact tracing application case study involved eight in-depth interviews with people involved with the development/governance of this application. The second case involved a complex case regarding familial communication discussed at the UK Genethics Forum. We used deductive qualitative analysis based on the COM-B model categories to analyse the transcripbed data from each case study.

RESULTS

Our analysis highlighted that being ethically prepared needs to go beyond merely equipping health professionals with skills and knowledge, or providing research governance actors with ethical principles and/or frameworks. To allow or support these different actors to utilise their skills and knowledge (or principles and frameworks), a focus on the physical and social opportunity is important, as is a better understanding the role of motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

To understand ethical preparedness, we need to view the process of ethical decision-making as a behaviour. We have provided insight into the specific factors that are needed to promote this behaviour-using examples from both in the pandemic context as well as in areas of health research and medicine where there have been rapid technological developments. This offers a useful starting point for further conceptual work around the notion of being ethically prepared.

Should Health Systems Share Genetic Findings With At-Risk Relatives When the Proband Is Deceased? Interviews With Individuals Diagnosed With Lynch Syndrome

Purpose

Genetic information has health implications for patients and their biological relatives. Death of a patient before sharing a genetic diagnosis with at-risk relatives is a missed opportunity to provide important information that could guide interventions to minimize cancer-related morbidity and mortality in relatives.

Methods

We performed semi-structured interviews with individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome at 1 of 4 health systems to explore their perspectives on whether health systems should share genetic risk information with relatives following a patient's death. An inductive, open-coding approach was used to analyze audio-recorded content, with software-generated code reports undergoing iterative comparative analysis by a qualitative research team to identify broad themes and representative participant quotes.

Results

Among 23 participating interviewees, 19 supported health systems informing relatives about their Lynch syndrome risk while the remaining 4 were conflicted about patient privacy. Most (n=22) wanted their Lynch syndrome diagnosis shared with relatives if they were unable to share and to be informed of their own risk if a diagnosed relative was unable to share. The most common issues noted regarding information-sharing with relatives included patient privacy and privacy laws (n=8), potential anxiety (n=5), and lack of contact information for relatives (n=3). Interviewee perspectives on how health systems could communicate genetic findings generated a consensus: When - a few months after but within a year of the patient's death; How - explanatory letter and follow-up phone call; and Who - a knowledgeable professional.

Conclusions

Interviews demonstrated strong and consistent perspectives from individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome that health systems have a role and responsibility to inform relatives of genetic findings following a patient's death.

Difficulties in providing genetic consultations by public health nurses in Japan

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to identify the topics that Japanese public health nurses (PHNs) find difficult during genetic consultations and to identify the relationships between these difficulties and PHNs' genetic education.

METHODS

We conducted a mail survey delivered to PHNs employed by local Japanese governmental agencies in the Tokyo metropolitan area, between July and October 2015. The self-administered questionnaire queried the (1) experience with genetic consultation, (2) perceived difficulties in genetic consultation, (3) genetics education background, and (4) demographics. The association between the perceived difficulties in genetic consultations and the genetics education opportunities was examined using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 907 mailed surveys, 536 PHNs responded (59.1% response rate). Most of the respondents (89.7%) had previously conducted genetic consultations. The majority of respondents (72.7%) had partaken in consultations regarding a possible hereditary disorder in the client or their families, and of those, 76.6% perceived difficulties during the genetic consultation. Respondents who had previously studied decision-making support for genetic testing were significantly less likely to perceive difficulties in genetic consultations on prenatal diagnosis (OR = 0.04, 95% CI [0.00-0.73]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that PHNs receive training in genetic consultation, which can be integrated into everyday practice.

Writing the worlds of genomic medicine: experiences of using participatory-writing to understand life with rare conditions

The diagnostic and treatment possibilities made possible by the development and subsequent mainstreaming of clinical genomics services have the potential to profoundly change the experiences of families affected by rare genetic conditions. Understanding the potentials of genomic medicine requires that we consider the perspectives of those who engage with such services; there are substantial social implications involved. There are increasing calls to think more creatively, and draw on more participatory approaches, in evoking rich accounts of lived experience. In this article, we discuss our rationale for, and experiences of, using 'participatory-writing' to understand the diverse, variable and multilayered everyday lives of families and how these correspond with the emerging, rapidly changing and complex field of genomic medicine. Participatory-writing has many benefits as a method for social inquiry. Writing can be expressive and self-revelatory, providing insight into personal and sensitive topics. Writing together produces new conversations and relationships. Pieces written by participants have the potential to affect readers, evoking and enlivening research and prompting professional change. Working with a writing tutor, we organised a participatory-writing programme for families touched by genetic conditions. This involved a series of workshops with an emphasis on building confidence in expressing lived experience through experimenting with different writing techniques. Afterwards we arranged reflective interviews with participants. We drew on dialogical narrative analysis to engage with participants' written pieces, and highlight what everyday life is like for the people who live with, and care for, those with genetic conditions. The stories produced through our writing-groups unfold the implications of new genomic technologies, illuminating how genomics acts to (and likewise, fails to) reconfigure aspects of people's lives outside of the clinic, while simultaneously existing as a sociotechnical frame that can eclipse the wider contexts, challenges and liveliness of life with rare genetic conditions.

Comparing the attitudes of physicians and non-physicians toward communicating a patient's BRCA1 mutation to a first-degree relative against a patient's wishes

Although genetic testing can be vastly informative, it creates a dilemma if a patient does not want to disclose an abnormal genetic test to at-risk relatives. A sample of 200 participants from Nevada (100 physicians, 100 non-physicians) completed an 11-item questionnaire asking demographic information, familiarity with genetics and genetic testing, and opinions about a physician's role in a hypothetical case in which a patient does not wish to communicate her BRCA1 mutation to her sister. Although most respondents did not think the physician should notify the sister against the patient's wishes, more non-physicians (40%) than physicians (23%) contended that the physician should do so (p = 0.0119). Most respondents from both groups agreed that the physician should not have the legal duty to notify the sister, would not be morally justified in sharing genetic test results with the sister, but should have the right to notify a patient's relatives if the disease is "serious, preventable, and treatable." More non-physicians than physicians agreed that physicians should have an educational requirement on how to communicate genetic test results to patients and their family (88% vs 65%, p = 0.0002). Most physicians (70%) reported a familiarity/strong familiarity with genetic testing compared to non-physicians (33%; p < 0.0001). Future qualitative research should assess physicians' understanding of issues surrounding familial communication of genetic test results. Educational interventions to facilitate effective communication to patients and families are needed and welcomed by most physicians. Discrepancies between the attitudes of physicians and patients or the public need to be better understood and addressed.

From proband to provider: is there an obligation to inform genetic relatives of actionable risks discovered through direct-to-consumer genetic testing?

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a growing phenomenon, fuelled by the notion that knowledge equals control. One ethical question that arises concerns the proband's duty to share information indicating genetic risks in their relatives. However, such duties are unenforceable and may result in the realisation of anticipated harm to relatives. We argue for a shift in responsibility from proband to provider, placing a duty on test providers in the event of identified actionable risks to relatives. Starting from Parker and Lucassen's (2004) 'joint account model', we adapt Kilbride's (2018) application of the rule of rescue and balance it against the relative's right not to know, placing responsibility on the providers of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Where the risk of disease to a relative is actionable, we argue providers ought to share results even in the face of the proband's objections. Confidentiality issues are navigated by a pre-emptive consent model, whereby consumers agree to the sharing of certain information with their relatives ahead of testing and as a condition of testing. When a relative is informed, the proband's privacy is protected by maximal deidentification, and the rights of the relative are met by a stepwise approach to informing that allows them to decide how much information they receive.

Re-imagining ‘the patient’: Linked lives and lessons from genomic medicine

How ‘the patient’ is imagined has implications for ethical decision-making in clinical practice. Patients are predominantly conceived in an individualised manner as autonomous and independent decision-makers. Fields such as genomic medicine highlight the inadequacies of this conceptualisation as patients are likely to have family members who may be directly affected by the outcome of tests in others. Indeed, professional guidance has increasingly taken a view that genetic information should, at times, be regarded as of relevance to families, rather than individuals. What remains absent from discussions is an understanding of how those living through/with genomic testing articulate, construct, and represent patienthood, and what such understandings might mean for practice, particularly ethical decision-making.

Employing the notion of ‘linked lives’ from lifecourse theory, this article presents findings from a UK-based qualitative longitudinal study following the experiences of those affected by the process and outcomes of genomic testing. The article argues that there is a discord between lived experiences and individualised notions of ‘the patient’ common in conventional bioethics, with participants predominantly locating their own decision-making within the matrix of linked lives in which they are embedded. In the quest to gain ‘answers’, many took an intra or intergenerational view, connecting their own experiences to those of past generations through familial narratives around probable explanations, and/or hopes and expectations for the health of imagined future generations. The article argues that a re-imagining of ‘the patient’, that reflects the complex and shifting nature of patienthood, will be imperative as genomic medicine is mainstreamed.

•

How ‘the patient’ is imagined has implications for ethical decision-making.

•

Genomic medicine shows the shortcomings of individualised notions of ‘the patient’.

•

Instead, a ‘linked lives’ lens highlights the ensembles of relationships affected.

•

Participants reported more collective inter/intra-generational views of patienthood.

•

Re-imagining patienthood beyond the individual is vital as genomics is mainstreamed.

"If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens

Biological kin share up to half of their genetic material, including predisposition to disease. Thus, variants of clinical significance identified in each individual's genome can implicate an exponential number of relatives at potential risk. This has renewed the dilemma over family access to research participant's genetic results, since prevailing U.S. practices treat these as private, controlled by the individual. These individual-based ethics contrast with the family-based ethics- in which genetic information, privacy, and autonomy are considered to be familial- endorsed in UK genomic medicine and by participants in a multi-method study of U.S. research participants presented here. The dilemma reflects a conflict between U.S. legal and ethical frameworks that privilege "the individual" and exclude "the family" versus actual human genetics that are simultaneously individual and familial. Can human genetics succeed in challenging bioethics' hegemonic individualism to recognize and place the family at the center of the room where bioethics happens?

In the family: access to, and communication of, familial information in clinical practice

How an individual’s genetic information is governed by confidentiality, and how the interests of others—such as close relatives—in knowing such information might be respected, has been the topic of much debate ever since genetic testing has become more prevalent. In this paper, two authors who often appear to have different views on familial disclosure, discuss where they agree on this topic.

Imagining genomic medicine futures in primary care: General practitioners' views on mainstreaming genomics in the National Health Service

Genomic medicine has captured the imaginations of policymakers and medical scientists keen to harness its health and economic potentials. In 2012, the UK government launched the 100,000 Genomes Project to sequence the genomes of British National Health Service (NHS) patients, laying the ground for mainstreaming genomic medicine in the NHS and developing the UK's genomics industry. However, the recent research and reports from national bodies monitoring genomic medicine's roll-out suggest both ethical and practical challenges for health-care professionals. Against this backdrop, this paper, drawing on qualitative research interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and documentary analysis of policy, explores GPs' views on mainstreaming genomic medicine in the NHS and implications for their practice. Analysing the NHS's genomic medicine agenda as a 'sociotechnical imaginary', we demonstrate that whilst sociotechnical imaginaries are construed as collectively shared understandings of the future, official visions of genomic medicine diverge from those at the forefront of health-care service delivery. Whilst policy discourse evokes hope and transformation of health care, some GPs see technology in formation, an unattainable 'utopia', with no relevance to their everyday clinical practice. Finding space for genomics requires bridging the gap between 'work as imagined' at the policy level and 'work as done' in health-care delivery.

Patient and Family Preferences on Health System-Led Direct Contact for Cascade Screening

Health benefits to relatives of people at known genetic risk for hereditary cancer syndromes is key to realizing the promise of precision medicine. We conducted a qualitative study to design a patient- and family-centered program for direct contact of relatives to recommend cascade genetic testing. We conducted two rounds of data collection using focus groups followed by individual interviews with patients with HBOC or Lynch syndrome and a separate sample of people with a family history of hereditary cancers. Results indicate that U.S.-based health system-led direct contact of relatives is acceptable to patients and families, should take a programmatic approach, include consent of relatives before proband testing, complement to existing patient-mediated disclosure, and allow for relative control of information. Our findings suggest a set of requirements for U.S.-based direct contact programs that could ultimately benefit more relatives than current approaches.

Genetic counselors, patients', and carers' views on an Australian clinical genetics service information system

The Genetic Information System (GIS) is an Australian database of family genetic information. This health information technology system has been used by all 31 publicly operated clinical genetics services across New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) for over a decade. As these services are separated geographically, the linkage engendered by the GIS facilitates the services to operate as a virtual state-wide service. This study aimed to explore the views of genetic counselors, patients, and carers on the use and storage of family genetic information in the GIS. Data were collected using audio-recorded semi-structured telephone interviews with genetic counselors experienced with using the GIS and focus groups with past patients/carers of the services. Using thematic analysis, four themes were identified from genetic counselor participant interviews (n = 12): (a) Shared information is valuable; (b) inconsistent data entry provides a challenge; (c) perceived need for the GIS to be current and integrated with other health systems; and (d) future challenges and strategies for the GIS. Three themes were identified following three focus groups with consumer participants (n = 14): (a) access to family genetic information provides a 'clearer picture'; (b) support, but caution, concerning use of information for relatives' health care; and (c) stewardship of family information. Genetic counselors and consumers identified similar advantages and privacy concerns regarding the sharing of family genetic information and all participants wanted patients/carers to be better informed about the GIS early in the genetic counseling process. Consumers were reassured by genetics health professionals' stewardship of their information, but surprised the GIS was not available nationally or for private geneticists or certain non-genetic specialists. These findings may inform further development of the GIS and other clinical genetic databases and lead to increased patient/carer knowledge through education and resource development.

Room for improvement: One third of Lynch syndrome patients presenting for genetic testing in a highly specialised centre in Stockholm already have cancer

Background

Lynch syndrome is caused by germline mutations in the mismatch repair genes and is characterised by a familial accumulation of colorectal and other cancers. Earlier identification of Lynch syndrome patients enables surveillance and might reduce the risk of cancer. It is important to explore whether today’s clinical care discovers patients with Lynch syndrome suitable for surveillance in time. This study aimed to describe what led to a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome in the cohort referred to the Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden for gastrointestinal surveillance.

Methods

This was a descriptive study. Data from 1975 to 2018 were collected and compiled as a database. Age at diagnosis was calculated from the date when a pathogenic MMR gene mutation was confirmed, from the period June 1994–September 2018. Data were collected from patient protocols prospectively during patient consultations and medical records retrospectively. Criteria for inclusion were registration at the outpatient clinic and a confirmed mismatch repair gene mutation.

Results

A total of 305 patients were eligible for inclusion. Three major reasons for diagnosis were identified: 1. Predictive testing of a previously known mutation in the family (62%, mean age 37), 2. A family history of Lynch associated tumours (9%, mean age 37), 3. A diagnosis of cancer (29%, mean age 51). The proportion diagnosed due to cancer has not changed over time.

Conclusion

A high proportion of patients (29%) were identified with Lynch syndrome after they had been diagnosed with an associated cancer, which suggests that there is significant room for improvement in the diagnosis of patients with Lynch syndrome before cancer develops.

Health data research on sudden cardiac arrest: perspectives of survivors and their next-of-kin

BACKGROUND

Consent for data research in acute and critical care is complex as patients become at least temporarily incapacitated or die. Existing guidelines and regulations in the European Union are of limited help and there is a lack of literature about the use of data from this vulnerable group. To aid the creation of a patient-centred framework for responsible data research in the acute setting, we explored views of patients and next-of-kin about the collection, storage, sharing and use of genetic and health-related data for observational research.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews (n = 19) with Dutch sudden cardiac arrest survivors who donated clinical and socio-economic data and genetic samples to research. We also interviewed their next-of-kin. Topics were informed by ethics literature and we used scenario-sketches to aid discussion of complex issues.

RESULTS

Sudden cardiac arrest survivors displayed limited awareness of their involvement in health data research and of the content of their given consent. We found that preferences regarding disclosure of clinically actionable genetic findings could change over time. When data collection and use were limited to the medical realm, patients trusted researchers to handle data responsibly without concern for privacy or other risks. There was no consensus as to whether deferred consent should be explicitly asked from survivors. If consent is asked, this would ideally be done a few months after the event when cognitive capacities have been regained. Views were divided about the need to obtain proxy consent for research with deceased patients' data. However, there was general support for the disclosure of potentially relevant post-mortem genetic findings to relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Sudden cardiac arrest patients' donation of data for research was grounded in trust in medicine overall, blurring the boundary between research and care. Our findings also highlight questions about the acceptability of a one-time consent and about responsibilities of patients, researchers and ethics committees. Finally, further normative investigation is needed regarding the (continued) use of participants' data after death, which is of particular importance in this setting. Our findings are thought to be of relevance for other acute and life-threatening illnesses as well.

An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era

The field of genetic counseling has grown and diversified since the profession emerged in the early 1970s. In the same period, genomic testing has become more complex, profitable, and widespread. With these developments, the scope of ethical considerations relevant to genetic counseling has expanded. In light of this, we find it helpful to revisit how ethical and relational variables are used to inform genetic counseling practice. Our specific focus is on whether, and to what extent, it is ethically acceptable for genetic counselors to make normative recommendations to patients. This article builds on prior literature that has critiqued nondirectiveness, a concept that has influenced and constrained the modern profession of genetic counseling since its origin. In it, we review scholarly efforts to move beyond nondirectiveness, which we believe privilege patient autonomy at the expense of other important values. We then argue that genetic counselors should favor a more explicit commitment to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as a broader understanding of autonomy and the relational variables that impact genetic counseling. Finally, to translate our arguments into practice, we present a framework of six considerations that genetic counselors should take into account when deciding whether it is ethically acceptable, or even desirable, to make recommendations to patients in certain areas of their work.

Exploring broad consent in the context of the 100,000 Genomes Project: a mixed methods study

The 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP)-a hybrid clinical-research initiative-was set up to analyse whole-genome sequences (WGS) from patients living with a rare disease or cancer. The project positioned participant consent as being of central importance, but consent in the context of genomic testing raises challenging issues. In this mixed method study, we surveyed 1337 100kGP participants regarding their experiences of taking part in the project and conducted in-depth interviews with 24 survey respondents to explore these findings further. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data were analysed thematically. The consent approach of the 100kGP resulted in a proportion of our study's participants not understanding the complexities of the project and what types of results they might receive; for example, 20% of participants who we surveyed from the cancer arm did not recall what decisions they had made regarding additional findings. It is not surprising that a project such as this, with such diverse aims and participant groups, would throw up at least some challenges. However, participants reported being satisfied with their experience of the project to date. Our study highlights that in the context of consent for more complex endeavours, such as the 100kGP, it is important to assess (and document) an agreement to take part, but complicated decisions about what and when to communicate may need revisiting over time in response to changing contexts. We discuss the implications of our findings with reference to participants of the 100kGP and the newly formed NHS Genomic Medicine Service.

"It would be so much easier": health system-led genetic risk notification-feasibility and acceptability of cascade screening in an integrated system

Assess the feasibility and acceptability of health system-led genetic risk notification in a US integrated health system. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with individuals age 40-64 years who had undergone genetic sequencing, but had not yet received their results, assessing attitudes to direct outreach to relatives. During each interview, we collected contact information for adult relatives identified as members of the same system and attempted to identify each relative in administrative data. We conducted 20 interviews. Most participants expressed support for Kaiser Permanente Washington involvement in familial risk notification. Direct outreach to relatives received the most unqualified support; outreach to the relatives' physician or interaction with the relatives' electronic medical record received more tempered support. Support was motivated by the desire to have risk communicated accurately and quickly. The most common caveat was a desire to alert relatives before the health system contacted them. Of 57 named relatives who were members of the same health system, we retrieved a single match for 40 (70.2%) based on name or birthdate. Health system involvement in familial risk notification received support in a sample of patients in a US integrated health system, and identification of relatives is feasible.

Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice

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.

The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice

Following the identification in a proband of a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) or a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation in Lynch syndrome (LS) he or she will be asked to inform at-risk family members about the option for presymptomatic DNA testing. However, in clinical practice multiple factors may complicate the process of information sharing. We critically evaluated studies on the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in both syndromes. A search of relevant MeSH terms and key words in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO yielded 795 articles published between 2001 and 2017. Thirty of these publications included outcome measures relevant for the current study. Based on information provided by the proband (15 studies) the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing ranged from 15 to 57% in HBOC, while one study in LS kindreds reported an uptake of 70%. Based on information provided by genetics centres (the remaining 15 studies) the uptake ranged from 21 to 44% in HBOC and from 41 to 94% in LS. However, when genetics centres contacted relatives directly a substantial number of additional family members could be tested. Proband-mediated provision of information to at-risk relatives is a standard procedure in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. However, the resulting uptake of presymptomatic testing is disappointing-an issue that is now urgent due to the increased use of genetic testing in clinical oncology. We propose that additional strategies should be introduced including the geneticist directly contacting relatives. The outcomes of these strategies should be carefully monitored and evaluated.

Recent developments in genetic/genomic medicine

Advances in genetic technology are having a major impact in the clinic, and mean that many perceptions of the role and scope of genetic testing are having to change. Genomic testing brings with it a greater opportunity for diagnosis, or predictions of future diagnoses, but also an increased chance of uncertain or unexpected findings, many of which may have impacts for multiple members of a person's family. In the past, genetic testing was rarely able to provide rapid results, but the increasing speed and availability of genomic testing is changing this, meaning that genomic information is increasingly influencing decisions around patient care in the acute inpatient setting. The landscape of treatment options for genetic conditions is shifting, which has evolving implications for clinical discussions around previously untreatable disorders. Furthermore, the point of access to testing is changing with increasing provision direct to the consumer outside the formal healthcare setting. This review outlines the ways in which genetic medicine is developing in light of technological advances.

Genomic variant sharing: a position statement

Sharing de-identified genetic variant data is essential for the practice of genomic medicine and is demonstrably beneficial to patients. Robust genetic diagnoses that inform medical management cannot be made accurately without reference to genetic test results from other patients, as well as population controls. Errors in this process can result in delayed, missed or erroneous diagnoses, leading to inappropriate or missed medical interventions for the patient and their family. The benefits of sharing individual genetic variants, and the harms of not sharing them, are numerous and well-established. Databases and mechanisms already exist to facilitate deposition and sharing of pseudonomised genetic variants, but clarity and transparency around best practice is needed to encourage widespread use, prevent inconsistencies between different communities, maximise individual privacy and ensure public trust. We therefore recommend that widespread sharing of a small number of individual genetic variants associated with limited clinical information should become standard practice in genomic medicine. Information robustly linking genetic variants with specific conditions is fundamental biological knowledge, not personal information, and therefore should not require consent to share. For additional case-level detail about individual patients or more extensive genomic information, which is often essential for clinical interpretation, it may be more appropriate to use a controlled-access model for data sharing, with the ultimate aim of making as much information as open and de-identified as possible with appropriate consent.

How do clinical genetics consent forms address the familial approach to confidentiality and incidental findings? A mixed-methods study

Genetic test results can be relevant to patients and their relatives. Questions thus arise around whether clinicians regard genetic information as confidential to individuals or to families, and about how they broach this and other issues, including the potential for incidental findings, in consent (forms) for genetic testing. We conducted a content analysis of UK-wide genetic testing consent forms and interviewed 128 clinicians/laboratory scientists. We found that almost all genetic services offered patients multiple, sometimes unworkable, choices on forms, including an option to veto the use of familial genetic information to benefit relatives. Participants worried that documented choices were overriding professional judgement and cautioned against any future forms dictating practice around incidental findings. We conclude that ‘tick-box’ forms, which do little to enhance autonomy, are masking valid consent processes in clinical practice. As genome-wide testing becomes commonplace, we must re-consider consent processes, so that they protects patients’—and relatives’—interests.

Parents of a child with epilepsy: Views and expectations on receiving genetic results from Whole Genome Sequencing

PURPOSE

The use of Next Generation Sequencing technologies (NGS), such as Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS), is expected to improve the often complex and protracted course of treatment of patients with epilepsy by providing an earlier and more accurate diagnosis. As part of the "Personalized medicine in the treatment of epilepsy" project, which aimed to determine whether WGS could be used as a valuable "diagnostic tool" in pharmacoresistant epilepsies, we examined parents' expectations, hopes, and concerns upon receiving results related to their child's epilepsy, comorbidities, resistance to medication, and genetic information on unrelated conditions, and how these results could impact their and their child's life.

METHODS

Parents of 32 children participating in the genetic study completed either paper or online questionnaires. A descriptive analysis of responses and comments was conducted regarding parents' experience with their child's epilepsy, as well as their views on WGS, and expectations and concerns surrounding such test results.

RESULTS

Most respondents had trouble explaining the medical causes of their child's epilepsy (n = 27), and a majority (n = 26) feared that their child may be treated unjustly because of their epilepsy, although some acknowledged that their child had never actually been treated unjustly (n = 13). A majority of respondents had also experienced feelings of guilt due to their child's epilepsy (n = 23), and some expected WGS results to have an impact on those feelings. The anticipation of benefits for their child was the parents' primary reason to get involved in a genomic research project, closely followed by altruism. A majority expressed strong intentions to receive as many WGS results as possible, considering that any could be beneficial for them and their child, even when mutations were not found. Respondents were divided as to how and when to tell their child that they might have newly discovered predispositions to develop another disease. In proportion, more parents expressed concerns about sharing unexpected results with their family members compared with sharing results linked to epilepsy, comorbidities, and pharmacoresistance.

CONCLUSION

Our results reinforce the importance of having clear guidelines to help parents manage their expectations and better navigate the complexities of receiving and sharing WGS results. Despite the small size of our sample, we believe that our results are meaningful to clinical practice.

Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences

BACKGROUND

Genomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death?

METHODS

Preferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Fifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy-without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families-cannot be the sole foundation of policy.

Reasonable expectations of privacy in non-disclosure of familial genetic risk: What is it reasonable to expect?

Where there is conflict between a patient's interests in non-disclosure of their genetic information to relatives and the relative's interest in knowing the information because it indicates their genetic risk, clinicians have customarily been able to protect themselves against legal action by maintaining confidence even if, professionally, they did not consider this to be the right thing to do. In ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust ([2017] EWCA Civ 336) the healthcare team recorded their concern about the wisdom of the patient's decision to withhold genetic risk information from his relative, but chose to respect what they considered to be an unwise choice. Even though professional guidance considers that clinicians have the discretion to breach confidence where they believe this to be justified, (Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Pathologists and the British Society of Human Genetics, 2006; GMC, 2017) clinicians find it difficult to exercise this discretion in line with their convictions against the backdrop of the legal prioritisation of the duty to maintain confidence. Thus, the professional discretion is not being freely exercised because of doubts about the legal protection available in the event of disclosure. The reliance on consent as the legal basis for setting aside the duty of confidence often vetoes sharing information with relatives. This paper argues that an objective approach based on privacy, rather than a subjective consent-based approach, would give greater freedom to clinicians to exercise the discretion which their professional guidance affords.

Communication of Information about Genetic Risks: Putting Families at the Center

Genetic information is a family affair. With the expansion of genomic technologies, many new causal genes and variants have been established and the potential for molecular diagnoses increased, with implications not only for patients but also their relatives. The need for genetic counseling and intrafamilial circulation of information on genetic risks grew accordingly. Also, the amount and, particularly, the complexity of the information to convey multiplied. Sharing information about genetic risks with family members, however, has never been an easy matter and often becomes a source of personal and familial conflicts and distress. Ethical requisites generally prevent healthcare professionals from directly contacting their consultands' relatives (affected or still at risk), who often feel unsupported throughout that process. We discuss here the communication of genetic risks to family members. We first consider genomic testing as a basis for family-centered health care, as opposed to a predominant focus on the individual. We reviewed the literature on sharing genetic risk information with family members, and the associated ethical issues for professionals. Some clinical cases are presented and discussed, and key issues for meeting the needs of individuals and families are addressed. We argue that genetic information is inextricably linked to the family and that communicating about genetic risks is a process grounded within the broader milieu of family relationships and functioning. We conclude for the need for a more family-centered approach and interventions that can promote sensitive attitudes to the provision of genetic information to and within the family, as well as its inclusion in educational and training programmes for genetic healthcare professionals.

Genetic Privacy, Disease Prevention, and the Principle of Rescue

Suppose that you have deeply personal information that you do not want to share. Further suppose that this information could help others, perhaps even saving their lives. Should you reveal the information or keep it secret? With the increasing prevalence of genetic testing, more and more people are finding themselves in this situation. Although a patient's genetic results are potentially relevant to all her biological family members, her first-degree relatives-parents, children, and full siblings-are most likely to be affected. This is especially true for genetic mutations-like those in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes-that are associated with a dramatically increased risk of disease. Fortunately, people are usually willing to share results with their at-risk relatives. Occasionally, however, a patient refuses to disclose her findings to anyone outside her clinical team. Ethicists have written little on patients' moral duties to their at-risk relatives. Moreover, the few accounts that have been advanced are problematic. Some unnecessarily expose patients' genetic information to relatives who are unlikely to benefit from it, and others fail to ensure that patients' most vulnerable relatives are informed of their genetic risks. Patients' duty to warn can be defended in a way that avoids these problems. I argue that the duty to share one's genetic results is grounded in the principle of rescue-the idea that one ought to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the risk of harm to another person when the expected harm is serious and the cost or risk to oneself is sufficiently moderate. When these two criteria are satisfied, a patient will most likely have a duty to warn.

Tensions in ethics and policy created by National Precision Medicine Programs

Precision medicine promises to use genomics and other data-intensive approaches to improve diagnosis and develop new treatments for major diseases, but also raises a range of ethical and governance challenges. Implementation of precision medicine in “real world” healthcare systems blurs the boundary between research and care. This has implications for the meaning and validity of consent, and increased potential for discrimination, among other challenges. Increased sharing of personal information raises concerns about privacy, commercialization, and public trust. This paper considers national precision medicine schemes from the USA, the UK, and Japan, comparing how these challenges manifest in each national context and examining the range of approaches deployed to mitigate the potential undesirable social consequences. There is rarely a “one size” fits all solution to these complex problems, but the most viable approaches are those which take account of cultural preferences and attitudes, available resources, and the wider political landscape in which national healthcare systems are embedded.

The challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper

Rapid advances in microarray and sequencing technologies are making genotyping and genome sequencing more affordable and readily available. There is an expectation that genomic sequencing technologies improve personalized diagnosis and personalized drug therapy. Concurrently, provision of direct-to-consumer genetic testing by commercial providers has enabled individuals' direct access to their genomic data. The expanded availability of genomic data is perceived as influencing the relationship between the various parties involved including healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, individuals, families, industry, and government. This results in a need to revisit their roles and responsibilities. In a 1-day agenda-setting meeting organized by the COST Action IS1303 "Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives," participants discussed the main challenges associated with the expanded availability of genomic information, with a specific focus on public-private partnerships, and provided an outline from which to discuss in detail the identified challenges. This paper summarizes the points raised at this meeting in five main parts and highlights the key cross-cutting themes. In light of the increasing availability of genomic information, it is expected that this paper will provide timely direction for future research and policy making in this area.

Data Sharing and the Idea of Ownership

Ideas about ownership are sometimes used in discussions of data sharing in personalised medicine. Personal health data are thought by many to be 'theirs'. Paradoxically, personalised medicine (at least in the context of genomics) relies on the aggregation of private data into a dataset that is held as a form of knowledge commons. When the notions of private and common property that lie behind this discourse are made explicit we can use thinking about the justifications and jurisprudence of property both to clarify the persuasiveness and limits of such claims, and also how they differ from other principles that are at stake in the interplay between individual and collective goods in the delivery of personalised medicine. This shows that ownership might more plausibly lie with health professionals than patients. In a socialised medicine system, such as the NHS, such professionals are agents of the state and ownership would lie with the commons rather than any individual. Common rather than private ownership of genomic information may be more appropriate.

Limitations and Pitfalls of Using Family Letters to Communicate Genetic Risk: a Qualitative Study with Patients and Healthcare Professionals

European genetic testing guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals (HCPs) discuss the familial implications of any test with a patient and offer written material to help them share the information with family members. Giving patients these “family letters” to alert any relatives of their risk has become part of standard practice and has gone relatively unquestioned over the years. Communication with at-risk relatives will become an increasingly pressing issue as mainstream and routine practice incorporates broad genome tests and as the number of findings potentially relevant to relatives increases. This study therefore explores problems around the use of family letters to communicate about genetic risk. We conducted 16 focus groups with 80 HCPs, and 35 interviews with patients, recruited from across the UK. Data were analyzed thematically and we constructed four themes: 1) HCPs writing family letters: how to write them and why?, 2) Patients’ issues with handing out family letters, 3) Dissemination becomes an uncontrolled form of communication, and 4) When the relative has the letter, is the patient’s and HCP’s duty discharged? We conclude by suggesting alternative and supplementary methods of communication, for example through digital tools, and propose that in comparison to communication by family letter, direct contact by HCPs might be a more appropriate and successful option.

Healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives on consent to clinical genetic testing: moving towards a more relational approach

BACKGROUND

This paper proposes a refocusing of consent for clinical genetic testing, moving away from an emphasis on autonomy and information provision, towards an emphasis on the virtues of healthcare professionals seeking consent, and the relationships they construct with their patients.

METHODS

We draw on focus groups with UK healthcare professionals working in the field of clinical genetics, as well as in-depth interviews with patients who have sought genetic testing in the UK's National Health Service (data collected 2013-2015). We explore two aspects of consent: first, how healthcare professionals consider the act of 'consenting' patients; and second how these professional accounts, along with the accounts of patients, deepen our understanding of the consent process.

RESULTS

Our findings suggest that while healthcare professionals working in genetic medicine put much effort into ensuring patients' understanding about their impending genetic test, they acknowledge, and we show, that patients can still leave genetic consultations relatively uninformed. Moreover, we show how placing emphasis on the informational aspect of genetic testing is not always reflective of, or valuable to, patients' decision-making. Rather, decision-making is socially contextualised - also based on factors outside of information provision.

CONCLUSIONS

A more collaborative on-going consent process, grounded in virtue ethics and values of honesty, openness and trustworthiness, is proposed.

Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?

The dominant, individualistic understanding of autonomy that features in clinical practice and research is underpinned by the idea that people are, in their ideal form, independent, self-interested and rational gain-maximising decision-makers. In recent decades, this paradigm has been challenged from various disciplinary and intellectual directions. Proponents of ‘relational autonomy’ in particular have argued that people’s identities, needs, interests – and indeed autonomy – are always also shaped by their relations to others. Yet, despite the pronounced and nuanced critique directed at an individualistic understanding of autonomy, this critique has had very little effect on ethical and legal instruments in clinical practice and research so far. In this article, we use four case studies to explore to what extent, if at all, relational autonomy can provide solutions to ethical and practical problems in clinical practice and research. We conclude that certain forms of relational autonomy can have a tangible and positive impact on clinical practice and research. These solutions leave the ultimate decision to the person most affected, but encourage and facilitate the consideration of this person’s care and responsibility for connected others.

Returning genome sequences to research participants: Policy and practice

Despite advances in genomic science stimulating an explosion of literature around returning health-related findings, the possibility of returning entire genome sequences to individual research participants has not been widely considered. Through direct involvement in large-scale translational genomics studies, we have identified a number of logistical challenges that would need to be overcome prior to returning individual genome sequence data, including verifying that the data belong to the requestor and providing appropriate informatics support. In addition, we identify a number of ethico-legal issues that require careful consideration, including returning data to family members, mitigating against unintended consequences, and ensuring appropriate governance. Finally, recognising that there is an opportunity cost to addressing these issues, we make some specific pragmatic suggestions for studies that are considering whether to share individual genomic datasets with individual study participants. If data are shared, research should be undertaken into the personal, familial and societal impact of receiving individual genome sequence data.

Approaching confidentiality at a familial level in genomic medicine: a focus group study with healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES

Clinical genetics guidelines from 2011 conceptualise genetic information as confidential to families, not individuals. The normative consequence of this is that the family's interest is the primary consideration and genetic information is shared unless there are good reasons not to do so. We investigated healthcare professionals' (HCPs') views about, and reasoning around, individual and familial approaches to confidentiality and how such views influenced their practice.

METHOD

16 focus groups with 80 HCPs working in/with clinical genetics services were analysed, drawing on grounded theory.

RESULTS

Participants raised seven problems with, and arguments against, going beyond the individual approach to confidentiality. These problems fell into two overlapping categories: 'relationships' and 'structures'. Most participants had never considered ways to-or thought it was impossible to-treat familial genetic information and personal information differently. They worried that putting the familial approach into practice could disrupt family dynamics and erode patient trust in the health service. They also thought they had insufficient resources to share information and feared that sharing might change the standard of care and make them more vulnerable to liability.

CONCLUSIONS

A familial approach to confidentiality has not been accepted or adopted as a standard, but wider research suggests that some of the problems HCPs perceived are surmountable and sharing in the interest of the family can be achieved. However, further research is needed to explore how personal and familial genetic information can be separated in practice. Our findings are relevant to HCPs across health services who are starting to use genome tests as part of their routine investigations.

Commentary: data sharing in South East Asia

Louis Grue and colleagues describe their experiences of sharing data in an international research collaboration

Ethical issues in the evaluation of adults with suspected genetic neuromuscular disorders

Genetic testing is rapidly becoming an increasingly significant part of the diagnostic armamentarium of neuromuscular clinicians. Although technically easy to order, the results of such testing, whether positive or negative, have potentially enormous consequences for the individual tested and for family members. As a result, ethical considerations must be in the forefront of the physician's agenda when obtaining genetic testing. Informed consent is an important starting point for discussions between physicians and patients, but the counseling embedded in the informed consent process must be an ongoing part of subsequent interactions, including return of results and follow-up. Patient autonomy, including the right to know and right not-to-know results, must be respected. Considerations of capacity, physician beneficence and nonmaleficence, and privacy all play roles in the process. Muscle Nerve 54: 997-1006, 2016.

Beyond clinical utility: The multiple values of DTC genetics

One point of consensus in the otherwise very controversial discussion about the benefits and dangers of DTC genetics in the health domain is the lack of substantial clinical utility. At the same time, both the empirical and conceptual literature indicate that health-related DTC tests can have value and utility outside of the clinic. We argue that a broader and multi-faceted conceptualization of utility and value would enrich the ethical and social discussion of DTC testing in several ways: First, looking at ways in which DTC testing can have personal and social value for users – in the form of entertainment, learning, or a way to relate to others – can help to explain why people still take DTC tests, and will, further down the line, foster a more nuanced understanding of secondary and tertiary uses of DTC test results (which could very well unearth new ethical and regulatory challenges). Second, considering the economic value and broader utility of DTC testing foregrounds wider social and political aspects than have been dominant in the ethical and regulatory debates surrounding DTC genetics so far. These wider political aspects include the profound power asymmetries that characterize the collection and use of personal genetic data in many contexts.