The Key Features of a Genetic Nondiscrimination Policy: A Delphi Consensus Statement

Importance

Governments worldwide have become increasingly cognizant of the spread of genetic discrimination (negative treatment or harm on the basis of actual or presumed genetic characteristics). Despite efforts by a number of governments to establish regulations addressing this phenomenon, public concern about genetic discrimination persists.

Objective

To identify key elements of an optimal genetic nondiscrimination policy and inform policymakers as they seek to allay genetic nondiscrimination and related public anxieties.

Evidence Review

Sixty multidisciplinary experts from 20 jurisdictions worldwide were consulted to understand their views on effective genetic nondiscrimination policies. Following standard requirements of the Delphi method, 3 rounds of surveys over the course of 1.5 years were conducted. Round 1 focused on assessing participants' understanding of the intricacies of existing genetic nondiscrimination policies, while rounds 2 and 3 invited participants to reflect on specific means of implementing a more effective regime. A total of 60 respondents participated in the first round, 53 participated in round 2, and 43 participated in round 3.

Findings

While responses varied across disciplines, there was consensus that binding regulations that reach across various sectors are most useful in preventing genetic discrimination. Overall, experts agreed that human rights-based approaches are well suited to preventing genetic discrimination. Experts also agreed that explicit prohibition of genetic discrimination within nondiscrimination policies can highlight the importance of genetic nondiscrimination as a fundamental right and ensure robust protection at a national level. While most participants believed the international harmonization of genetic nondiscrimination laws would facilitate data sharing worldwide, they also recognized that regulations must reflect the sociocultural differences that exist among regions.

Conclusions and Relevance

As the reach of genetic discrimination continues to evolve alongside developments in genomics, strategic policy responses that are harmonious at the international and state levels will be critical to address this phenomenon. In seeking to establish comprehensive frameworks, policymakers will need to be mindful of regional and local circumstances that influence the need for and efficacy of unique genetic nondiscrimination approaches across diverse contexts.

The Role of Genetic Testing in Adult CKD

Mounting evidence indicates that monogenic disorders are the underlying cause in a significant proportion of patients with CKD. In recent years, the diagnostic yield of genetic testing in these patients has increased significantly as a result of revolutionary developments in genetic sequencing techniques and sequencing data analysis. Identification of disease-causing genetic variant(s) in patients with CKD may facilitate prognostication and personalized management, including nephroprotection and decisions around kidney transplantation, and is crucial for genetic counseling and reproductive family planning. A genetic diagnosis in a patient with CKD allows for screening of at-risk family members, which is also important for determining their eligibility as kidney transplant donors. Despite evidence for clinical utility, increased availability, and data supporting the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing in CKD, especially when applied early in the diagnostic process, many nephrologists do not use genetic testing to its full potential because of multiple perceived barriers. Our aim in this article was to empower nephrologists to (further) implement genetic testing as a diagnostic means in their clinical practice, on the basis of the most recent insights and exemplified by patient vignettes. We stress why genetic testing is of significant clinical benefit to many patients with CKD, provide recommendations for which patients to test and which test(s) to order, give guidance about interpretation of genetic testing results, and highlight the necessity for and essential components of pretest and post-test genetic counseling.

"Uninsurable because of a genetic test": a qualitative study of consumer views about the use of genetic test results in Australian life insurance

Genetic testing can provide valuable information to mitigate personal disease risk, but the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is known to deter many consumers from pursuing genetic testing. In 2019, following Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry recommendations, the Financial Services Council (FSC) introduced an industry-led partial moratorium, prohibiting life insurance companies from using genetic test results for policies up to $AUD500,000. We used semi-structured interviews to explore genetic test consumers' experiences and views about the FSC moratorium and the use of genetic results by life insurers. Individuals who participated in an online survey and agreed to be re-contacted to discuss the issue further were invited. Interviews were 20-30-min long, conducted via video conference, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Twenty-seven participants were interviewed. Despite the moratorium, concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance were prevalent. Participants reported instances where life insurers did not consider risk mitigation when assessing risk for policies based on genetic results, contrary to legal requirements. Most participants felt that the moratorium provided inadequate protection against discrimination, and that government legislation regulating life insurers' use of genetic results is necessary. Many participants perceived the financial limits to be inadequate, given the cost-of-living in Australia. Our findings indicate that from the perspective of participants, the moratorium has not been effective in allaying fears about genetic discrimination or ensuring adequate access to life insurance products. Concern about genetic discrimination in life insurance remains prevalent in Australia.

Astronaut omics and the impact of space on the human body at scale

Future multi-year crewed planetary missions will motivate advances in aerospace nutrition and telehealth. On Earth, the Human Cell Atlas project aims to spatially map all cell types in the human body. Here, we propose that a parallel Human Cell Space Atlas could serve as an openly available, global resource for space life science research. As humanity becomes increasingly spacefaring, high-resolution omics on orbit could permit an advent of precision spaceflight healthcare. Alongside the scientific potential, we consider the complex ethical, cultural, and legal challenges intrinsic to the human space omics discipline, and how philosophical frameworks may benefit from international perspectives.

Medicolegal and insurance issues regarding BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene tests in high income countries

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer susceptibility syndrome mainly due to variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Patients presenting with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations have a lifetime risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer (80% and 40%, respectively). Genetic testing to explore the predisposition to develop cancer represents a pivotal factor in such cases, and this review wants to explore the main implications in terms of medicolegal liability and insurance issues. Medicolegal issues related to these diagnostic processes include: (a) failure to recommend the test; (b) failure to properly interpret the test; (c) failure to correctly translate results into clinical practice; (d) lack of informed consent; and (e) failure to refer patients to specialized genetic counseling. Such errors may lead to compensation since the legal burden inherent in the efficacy of prophylactic interventions is a proof that requires the so-called 'preponderance of the evidence'. Concerning insurance issues, the carriers of such alleles without cancer are healthy because the genetic predisposition is not a disease per se but represents a (relevant) health risk. However, disclosure of these conditions can be impelled by insurers. It can lead to so-called 'genetic discrimination' because insurance companies might use genetic information to limit insurance options or increase their costs. Many private and public healthcare funders do not cover risk reducing surgeries, even when recommended as part of a risk reduction management plan for BRCA gene mutation carriers. Here, positions on these matters from different high income countries are discussed, stressing the importance of a common supranational or international regulatory framework to reach a trade-off between the economic interests of insurers and the rights of carriers not to disclose extremely sensitive information.

Australian researcher's perspectives on the Australian industry-led moratorium on genetic tests in life insurance

Fear of insurance discrimination can inhibit genetic research participation. In 2019, an industry-led partial moratorium on using genetic results in Australian life insurance underwriting was introduced. This mixed-methods study used online surveys (n = 59 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22 participants) to capture researchers' perceptions about the moratorium. 66% (n = 39/59) were aware of the moratorium before the survey. Of researchers returning genetic results, 56% (n = 22/39) reported that insurance implications were mentioned in consent forms, but a minority reported updating consent forms post-moratorium (n = 13/39, 33%). Most researchers reported that concerns regarding life insurers utilizing research results inhibited recruitment (35/59, 59%), and few perceived that the moratorium positively influenced participation (n = 9/39, 23%). These findings were supported by qualitative findings which revealed that genetic discrimination concerns were a major issue for some individuals, though these concerns could be eclipsed by the promise of a diagnosis through research participation. The majority thought a regulatory solution should be permanent (n = 34/51, 67%), have financial limits of at least ≥1,000,000 AUD (37/51, 73%), and involve government oversight/legislation (n = 44/51, 86%). In an era where an increasing number of research studies involve genomics as a primary or secondary objective, it is crucial that we have regulatory solutions to address participants' hesitation.

Potential corporate uses of polygenic indexes: Starting a conversation about the associated ethics and policy issues

Some commercial firms currently sell polygenic indexes (PGIs) to individual consumers, despite their relatively low predictive power. It might be tempting to assume that because the predictive power of many PGIs is so modest, other sorts of firms-such as those selling insurance and financial services-will not be interested in using PGIs for their own purposes. We argue to the contrary. We build this argument in two ways. First, we offer a very simple model, rooted in economic theory, of a profit-maximizing firm that can gain information about a single consumer's genome. We use the model to show that, depending on the specific economic environment, a firm would be willing to pay for statistically noisy PGIs, even if they allow for only a small reduction in uncertainty. Second, we describe two plausible scenarios in which these different kinds of firms could conceivably use PGIs to maximize profits. Finally, we briefly discuss some of the associated ethics and policy issues. They deserve more attention, which is unlikely to be given until it is first recognized that firms whose services affect a large swath of the public will indeed have incentives to use PGIs.

Pangenomics: A new era in the field of neurodegenerative diseases

A pangenome is composed of all the genetic variability of a group of individuals, and its application to the study of neurodegenerative diseases may provide valuable insights into the underlying aspects of genetic heterogenetiy for these complex ailments, including gene expression, epigenetics, and translation mechanisms. Furthermore, a reference pangenome allows for the identification of previously undetected structural commonalities and differences among individuals, which may help in the diagnosis of a disease, support the prediction of what will happen over time (prognosis) and aid in developing novel treatments in the perspective of personalized medicine. Therefore, in the present review, the application of the pangenome concept to the study of neurodegenerative diseases will be discussed and analyzed for its potential to enable an improvement in diagnosis and prognosis for these illnesses, leading to the development of tailored treatments for individual patients from the knowledge of the genomic composition of a whole population.

Perception of genomic newborn screening among peripartum mothers

Advances in genomic technology have generated possibilities for expanding newborn screening from traditional procedures to genomic newborn screening (gNBS). However, before the implementation of gNBS, it is crucial to address various aspects, including parental attitudes, at the national level. With this aim, we analyzed the attitudes and expectations of Slovenian peripartum mothers regarding gNBS and the acceptability of its implementation into the Slovenian health system. A questionnaire-based study was conducted on a convenience sample of 1136 peripartum mothers (a response rate of 84.1%) in a hospital setting in Slovenia. We measured participants' level of general genetic knowledge, motivation to undergo gNBS, attitude toward its benefits and drawbacks, willingness to participate financially, and factors that would influence their decision to undergo gNBS. Most participants exhibited a positive attitude (83.2%) and were motivated to undertake gNBS (63.4%). They were willing to share genetic data and also contribute to the testing costs. Mothers with better genetic literacy and higher education level, and those with the familial genetic testing experiences were more supportive of gNBS. However, several emotional and socio-ethical concerns were raised regarding how the genetic information would influence family and social life.

Human Pangenomics: Promises and Challenges of a Distributed Genomic Reference

A pangenome is a collection of the common and unique genomes that are present in a given species. It combines the genetic information of all the genomes sampled, resulting in a large and diverse range of genetic material. Pangenomic analysis offers several advantages compared to traditional genomic research. For example, a pangenome is not bound by the physical constraints of a single genome, so it can capture more genetic variability. Thanks to the introduction of the concept of pangenome, it is possible to use exceedingly detailed sequence data to study the evolutionary history of two different species, or how populations within a species differ genetically. In the wake of the Human Pangenome Project, this review aims at discussing the advantages of the pangenome around human genetic variation, which are then framed around how pangenomic data can inform population genetics, phylogenetics, and public health policy by providing insights into the genetic basis of diseases or determining personalized treatments, targeting the specific genetic profile of an individual. Moreover, technical limitations, ethical concerns, and legal considerations are discussed.

Big Data in Oncology Nursing Research: State of the Science

OBJECTIVE

To review the state of oncology nursing science as it pertains to big data. The authors aim to define and characterize big data, describe key considerations for accessing and analyzing big data, provide examples of analyses of big data in oncology nursing science, and highlight ethical considerations related to the collection and analysis of big data.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed articles published by investigators specializing in oncology, nursing, and related disciplines.

CONCLUSION

Big data is defined as data that are high in volume, velocity, and variety. To date, oncology nurse scientists have used big data to predict patient outcomes from clinician notes, identify distinct symptom phenotypes, and identify predictors of chemotherapy toxicity, among other applications. Although the emergence of big data and advances in computational methods provide new and exciting opportunities to advance oncology nursing science, several challenges are associated with accessing and using big data. Data security, research participant privacy, and the underrepresentation of minoritized individuals in big data are important concerns.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

With their unique focus on the interplay between the whole person, the environment, and health, nurses bring an indispensable perspective to the interpretation and application of big data research findings. Given the increasing ubiquity of passive data collection, all nurses should be taught the definition, characteristics, applications, and limitations of big data. Nurses who are trained in big data and advanced computational methods will be poised to contribute to guidelines and policies that preserve the rights of human research participants.

Germline Testing Around the Globe: Challenges in Different Practice Settings

Cancer is an increasing global public health burden. Lately, more emphasis has emerged on the importance of heredity in cancer, mostly driven by the introduction of germline genetic variants-directed therapeutics. It is true that 40% of cancer risk is attributed to modifiable environmental and lifestyle factors; still, 16% of cancers could be heritable, accounting for 2.9 of the 18.1 million cases diagnosed worldwide. At least two third of those will be diagnosed in countries with limited resources-low- and middle-income countries, especially where high rates of consanguine marriage and early age at diagnosis are already prevalent. Both are hallmarks of hereditary cancer. This creates a new opportunity for prevention, early detection, and recently therapeutic intervention. However, this opportunity is challenged by many obstacles along the path to addressing germline testing in patients with cancer in the clinic worldwide. Global collaboration and expertise exchange are important to bridge the knowledge gap and facilitate practical implementation. Adapting existing guidelines and prioritization according to local resources are essential to address the unique needs and overcome the unique barriers of each society.

Attitude Disparity and Worrying Scenarios in Genetic Discrimination-Based on Questionnaires from China

Objectives: As genetic testing is increasingly used in non-medical fields, the judgment of people's potential conditions based on predictive genetic information inevitably causes genetic discrimination (henceforth GD). This article aimed to systematically investigate the disparity in attitudes and worrying scenarios concerning GD in China. Methods: A questionnaire survey of 555 respondents was conducted. Statistical tests were used to examine disparity in attitudes between gender, age, and education. A descriptive analysis was also conducted to explore other worrying scenarios. Results: It shows that (1) men are more tolerant of GD compared to women, and (2) participants aged between 18 and 30 years old possess the highest objection to GD. However, (3) no indication can attest to the relationship between educational level and perspective on GD. In addition, (4) the acceptance of gene testing in the three most common scenarios is ranked in descending order as follows: partner choice, insurance services, and recruitment. Moreover, (5) worrying scenarios relating to GD include: education, social occasions, medical services, fertility, shopping, and so on. Conclusions: Based on the results, suggestions proposed include developing a blacklist mechanism in the field of genetic data application and strengthening the security regulations for the commercial use of genetic data.

Components, prospects and challenges of personalized prevention

Effective preventive strategies are urgently needed to address the rising burden of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. To date, most prevention efforts to reduce disease incidence have primarily targeted populations using "one size fits all" public health recommendations and strategies. However, the risk for complex heterogeneous diseases is based on a multitude of clinical, genetic, and environmental factors, which translate into individual sets of component causes for every person. Recent advances in genetics and multi-omics enable the use of new technologies to stratify disease risks at an individual level fostering personalized prevention. In this article, we review the main components of personalized prevention, provide examples, and discuss both emerging opportunities and remaining challenges for its implementation. We encourage physicians, health policy makers, and public health professionals to consider and apply the key elements and examples of personalized prevention laid out in this article while overcoming challenges and potential barriers to their implementation.

Gattaca as a lens on contemporary genetics: marking 25 years into the film's "not-too-distant" future

The 1997 film Gattaca has emerged as a canonical pop culture reference used to discuss modern controversies in genetics and bioethics. It appeared in theaters a few years prior to the announcement of the "completion" of the human genome (2000), as the science of human genetics was developing a renewed sense of its social implications. The story is set in a near-future world in which parents can, with technological assistance, influence the genetic composition of their offspring on the basis of predicted life outcomes. The current moment-25 years after the film's release-offers an opportunity to reflect on where society currently stands with respect to the ideas explored in Gattaca. Here, we review and discuss several active areas of genetic research-genetic prediction, embryo selection, forensic genetics, and others-that interface directly with scenes and concepts in the film. On its silver anniversary, we argue that Gattaca remains an important reflection of society's expectations and fears with respect to the ways that genetic science has manifested in the real world. In accompanying supplemental material, we offer some thought questions to guide group discussions inside and outside of the classroom.

Researcher perspectives on ethics considerations in epigenetics: an international survey

Over the past decade, bioethicists, legal scholars and social scientists have started to investigate the potential implications of epigenetic research and technologies on medicine and society. There is growing literature discussing the most promising opportunities, as well as arising ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI). This paper explores the views of epigenetic researchers about some of these discussions. From January to March 2020, we conducted an online survey of 189 epigenetic researchers working in 31 countries. We questioned them about the scope of their field, opportunities in different areas of specialization, and ELSI in the conduct of research and knowledge translation. We also assessed their level of concern regarding four emerging non-medical applications of epigenetic testing—i.e., in life insurance, forensics, immigration and direct-to-consumer testing. Although there was strong agreement on DNA methylation, histone modifications, 3D structure of chromatin and nucleosomes being integral elements of the field, there was considerable disagreement on transcription factors, RNA interference, RNA splicing and prions. The most prevalent ELSI experienced or witnessed by respondents were in obtaining timely access to epigenetic data in existing databases, and in the communication of epigenetic findings by the media. They expressed high levels of concern regarding non-medical applications of epigenetics, echoing cautionary appraisals in the social sciences and humanities literature.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

Addressing the routine failure to clinically identify monogenic cases of common disease

Changes in medical practice are needed to improve the diagnosis of monogenic forms of selected common diseases. This article seeks to focus attention on the need for universal genetic testing in common diseases for which the recommended clinical management of patients with specific monogenic forms of disease diverges from standard management and has evidence for improved outcomes.We review evidence from genomic screening of large patient cohorts, which has confirmed that important monogenic case identification failures are commonplace in routine clinical care. These case identification failures constitute diagnostic misattributions, where the care of individuals with monogenic disease defaults to the treatment plan offered to those with polygenic or non-genetic forms of the disease.The number of identifiable and actionable monogenic forms of common diseases is increasing with time. Here, we provide six examples of common diseases for which universal genetic test implementation would drive improved care. We examine the evidence to support genetic testing for common diseases, and discuss barriers to widespread implementation. Finally, we propose recommendations for changes to genetic testing and care delivery aimed at reducing diagnostic misattributions, to serve as a starting point for further evaluation and development of evidence-based guidelines for implementation.

Video education about genetic privacy and patient perspectives about sharing prenatal genetic data: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Laboratories offering cell-free DNA often reserve the right to share prenatal genetic data for research or even commercial purposes, and obtain this permission on the patient consent form. Although it is known that nonpregnant patients are often reluctant to share their genetic data for research, pregnant patients' knowledge of, and opinions about, genetic data privacy are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether pregnant patients who had already undergone cell-free DNA screening were aware that genetic data derived from cell-free DNA may be shared for research. Furthermore, we examined whether pregnant patients exposed to video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act-a federal law that mandates workplace and health insurance protections against genetic discrimination-were more willing to share cell-free DNA-related genetic data for research than pregnant patients who were unexposed.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04420858), English-speaking patients with singleton pregnancies who underwent cell-free DNA and subsequently presented at 17 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks of gestation for a detailed anatomy scan were randomized 1:1 to a control or intervention group. Both groups viewed an infographic about cell-free DNA. In addition, the intervention group viewed an educational video about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The primary outcomes were knowledge about, and willingness to share, prenatal genetic data from cell-free DNA by commercial laboratories for nonclinical purposes, such as research. The secondary outcomes included knowledge about existing genetic privacy laws, knowledge about the potential for reidentification of anonymized genetic data, and acceptability of various use and sharing scenarios for prenatal genetic data. Eighty-one participants per group were required for 80% power to detect an increase in willingness to share data from 60% to 80% (α=0.05).

RESULTS

A total of 747 pregnant patients were screened, and 213 patients were deemed eligible and approached for potential study participation. Of these patients, 163 (76.5%) consented and were randomized; one participant discontinued the intervention, and two participants were excluded from analysis after the intervention when it was discovered that they did not fulfill all eligibility criteria. Overall, 160 (75.1%) of those approached were included in the final analysis. Most patients in the control group (72 [90.0%]) and intervention (76 [97.4%]) group were either unsure about or incorrectly thought that cell-free DNA companies could not share prenatal genetic data for research. Participants in the intervention group were more likely to incorrectly believe that their prenatal genetic data would not be shared for nonclinical purposes than participants in the control group (28.8% in the control group vs 46.2% in the intervention; P=.03). However, video education did not increase participant willingness to share genetic data in multiple scenarios. Non-White participants were less willing than White participants to allow sharing of genetic data specifically for academic research (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Most participants were unaware that their prenatal genetic data may be used for nonclinical purposes. Pregnant patients who were educated about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act were not more willing to share genetic data than those who did not receive this education. Surprisingly, video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act led patients to falsely believe that their data would not be shared for research, and participants who identified as racial minorities were less willing to share genetic data. New strategies are needed to improve pregnant patients' understanding of genetic privacy.

Toward a Framework for Assessing Privacy Risks in Multi-Omic Research and Databases

While the accumulation and increased circulation of genomic data have captured much attention over the past decade, privacy risks raised by the diversification and integration of omics have been largely overlooked. In this paper, we propose the outline of a framework for assessing privacy risks in multi-omic research and databases. Following a comparison of privacy risks associated with genomic and epigenomic data, we dissect ten privacy risk-impacting omic data properties that affect either the risk of re-identification of research participants, or the sensitivity of the information potentially conveyed by biological data. We then propose a three-step approach for the assessment of privacy risks in the multi-omic era. Thus, we lay grounds for a data property-based, 'pan-omic' approach that moves away from genetic exceptionalism. We conclude by inviting our peers to refine these theoretical foundations, put them to the test in their respective fields, and translate our approach into practical guidance.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium

BACKGROUND

In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover).

METHODS

We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia.

RESULTS

Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required.

CONCLUSION

While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

The Genetic Discrimination Observatory: confronting novel issues in genetic discrimination

Genetic discrimination (GD) is the differential or unfair profiling of an individual on the basis of genetic data. This article summarizes the actions of the Genetic Discrimination Observatory (GDO) in addressing GD and recent developments in GD since late 2020. It shows how GD can take many forms in today's rapidly evolving society.

Risk-Stratified Approach to Breast Cancer Screening in Canada: Women's Knowledge of the Legislative Context and Concerns about Discrimination from Genetic and Other Predictive Health Data

The success of risk-stratified approaches in improving population-based breast cancer screening programs depends in no small part on women’s buy-in. Fear of genetic discrimination (GD) could be a potential barrier to genetic testing uptake as part of risk assessment. Thus, the objective of this study was twofold. First, to evaluate Canadian women’s knowledge of the legislative context governing GD. Second, to assess their concerns about the possible use of breast cancer risk levels by insurance companies or employers. We use a cross-sectional survey of 4293 (age: 30–69) women, conducted in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Colombia, Ontario and Québec). Canadian women’s knowledge of the regulatory framework for GD is relatively limited, with some gaps and misconceptions noted. About a third (34.7%) of the participants had a lot of concerns about the use of their health information by employers or insurers; another third had some concerns (31.9%), while 20% had no concerns. There is a need to further educate and inform the Canadian public about GD and the legal protections that exist to prevent it. Enhanced knowledge could facilitate the implementation and uptake of risk prediction informed by genetic factors, such as the risk-stratified approach to breast cancer screening that includes risk levels.

Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project

Background

The use of genetic test results in risk-rated insurance is a significant concern internationally, with many countries banning or restricting the use of genetic test results in underwriting. In Australia, life insurers’ use of genetic test results is legal and self-regulated by the insurance industry (Financial Services Council (FSC)). In 2018, an Australian Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that insurers’ use of genetic test results in underwriting should be prohibited. In 2019, the FSC introduced an industry self-regulated moratorium on the use of genetic test results. In the absence of government oversight, it is critical that the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of the moratorium is monitored. Here we describe the protocol of our government-funded research project, which will serve that critical function between 2020 and 2023.

Methods

A realist evaluation framework was developed for the project, using a context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) approach, to systematically assess the impact of the moratorium for a range of stakeholders. Outcomes which need to be achieved for the moratorium to accomplish its intended aims were identified, and specific data collection measures methods were developed to gather the evidence from relevant stakeholder groups (consumers, health professionals, financial industry and genetic research community) to determine if aims are achieved. Results from each arm of the study will be analysed and published in peer-reviewed journals as they become available.

Discussion

The A-GLIMMER project will provide essential monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of the self-regulated insurance moratorium. On completion of the study (3 years) a Stakeholder Report will be compiled. The Stakeholder Report will synthesise the evidence gathered in each arm of the study and use the CMO framework to evaluate the extent to which each of the outcomes have been achieved, and make evidence-based recommendations to the Australian federal government, life insurance industry and other stakeholders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00634-2.

Preparing genetic counselors to serve Native American communities

As a medical specialty, genetic counseling (GC) espouses cultural sensitivity, a patient-centered approach, and an eye for the individual, familial, and community-wide implications of genetics and genomics in medicine. Within the past decades, the field of GC has recognized and attempted to address a need for the greater diversity of providers and practice settings that will help to address health inequities across underrepresented communities (Channaoui et al., 2020). Accreditation for GC training programs mandates equipping students with multicultural sensitivity and knowledge on health disparities. Currently however, there are limited published data about how GC programs are accomplishing these aims for Native American individuals and communities. Furthermore, there are limited published data on the unique needs and perspectives of Native Americans who may seek GC services. This disconnect may pose barriers for genetic counselors who aim to provide respectful and relevant care to Native American patients. Education of GC students is one important way to set the tone for a lifetime of practice and to inspire awareness and action toward alleviating disparities. Thus, we surveyed GC training programs in North America to investigate how they are working to (a) address disparities in Native American professional representation and student enrollment, (b) deliver culturally relevant curricula and clinical opportunities that serve the needs of Native Americans, and (c) positively engage Native American communities in North America. We found that reported recruitment efforts, curricula content, clinical opportunities, and community engagement efforts to address the needs of Native American are limited across GC training programs surveyed. By bringing awareness to current methods, success factors, and barriers in this space, we hope to open the door for meaningful partnerships between leaders of Native American communities and GC training programs in the pursuit of greater equity.

DNA testing information on YouTube: Inadequate advice can mislead and harm the public

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA (i.e., genetic) testing has become very popular, with close to 30 million Americans having used these services. The 100 most widely viewed DNA YouTube testing videos were analyzed to determine whether they are providing adequate information for consumers. The top 100 videos had more than 300 million cumulative views, showing the popularity and reach of the information source. While many videos addressed the specimen collection process, family roots and ancestry, and the prospect of uncovering unexpected information about family or health leading to possible distress, almost none of the videos addressed accuracy or confidentiality issues, which are major issues of DNA testing. It is recommended that further information on those issues be made readily available, and more vigilant oversight by regulatory agencies be implemented. Such oversight should include monitoring what information is and is not readily provided by each company, and the veracity of information being communicated to existing and prospective consumers. We also recommend that for medical issues, clinical genetic testing, along with genetic counseling by genetic counselors, be the method of choice.