Attitudes of physicians and patients towards disclosure of genetic information to spouse and first-degree relatives: a case study from Turkey

Non-genetic physicians' knowledge, attitudes and behavior towards medical genetics

To examine the knowledge, behavior, and attitudes toward medical genetics among obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and neurology residents and specialists, who encounter the highest number of patients with specific genetic disorders, in their everyday practice. The cross-sectional study involved 182 nongenetic residents and specialists in the Republic of Croatia, who completed a validated online questionnaire anonymously and voluntarily. The questionnaire consisted of five groups of questions: general information, knowledge, behavior in practice, attitude toward genetic testing, and additional education in medical genetics. The median score for overall knowledge of medical genetics was 70.2% among obstetrician-gynecologists, 80.5% among pediatricians, and 76.7% among neurologists (P < 0.001, lowest median in obstetrician-gynecologists). When asked about their behavior in daily practice, around 90% of respondents admitted the possibility of not recognizing patients with genetic disorders, which is why more than 90% emphasized the need for additional education in medical genetics. In addition, the respondents showed a positive attitude toward genetic testing, but they did not feel educated enough to interpret the results of genetic testing. The results highlight the need for further genetic education of non-genetic health professionals, which would lead to greater confidence and ability to recognize patients with genetic disorders, select the appropriate genetic testing method and achieve more efficient communication with patients.

The attitude and behaviors of the different spheres of the community of the United Arab Emirates toward the clinical utility and bioethics of secondary genetic findings: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Genome sequencing has utility, however, it may reveal secondary findings. While Western bioethicists have been occupied with managing secondary findings, specialists' attention in the Arabic countries has not yet been captured. We aim to explore the attitude of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) population toward secondary findings.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study between July and December 2022. The validated questionnaire was administered in English. The questionnaire consists of six sections addressing topics such as demographics, reactions to hypothetical genetic test results, disclosure of mutations to family members, willingness to seek genetic testing, and attitudes toward consanguinity. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to investigate associations between categorical variables.

RESULTS

We had 343 participants of which the majority were female (67%). About four-fifths (82%) were willing to know the secondary findings, whether the condition has treatment or not. The most likely action to take among the participants was to know the secondary findings, so they can make life choices (61%).

CONCLUSION

These results can construct the framework of the bioethics of disclosing secondary findings in the Arab regions.

Are there differences in perceptions, preferences and attitudes towards disclosure of genetic testing for Stroke? A qualitative study among stroke-free SIREN-SIBS genomics study participants

OBJECTIVE

This study explored perceptions, preferences and attitudes towards disclosure of genetic testing results for stroke among stroke-free controls (and their family members) in the SIREN-SIBS Genomics Study, healthcare providers and policymakers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of key informant interviews with 61 participants recruited from community advisory boards (30) and health care providers (31) across seven sites in Nigeria and Ghana.

RESULTS

Major findings illustrate differences in the knowledge of genetic testing with superior knowledge among health care professionals. Relatives and religious leaders were opined as the best to receive the disclosure as they would be able to break the news to the patient in a culturally sensitive manner to reduce the likely resultant emotional outburst. Poor level of awareness of national guidelines for disclosing genetic results exist. Key facilitating factors for disclosure are education, enabling environment, involvement of religious and community leaders, campaigns, and possible treatment options. Disclosure inhibitors include inadequate information, fear of marital break-up or family displacement, fear of stigmatization, fear of isolation, religious beliefs, health worker attitude, and lack of preparedness to accept results.

CONCLUSIONS

These necessitate culturally sensitive interventions for continuing education, increased awareness and sustained engagement to equip all stakeholders in genetic testing disclosure process.

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.

How do healthcare professionals respond to ethical challenges regarding information management? A review of empirical studies

Aim

This study is a systematic review that aims to assess how healthcare professionals manage ethical challenges regarding information within the clinical context.

Method and Materials

We carried out searches in PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase, using two search strings; searches generated 665 hits. After screening, 47 articles relevant to the study aim were selected for review. Seven articles were identified through snowballing, and 18 others were included following a system update in PubMed, bringing the total number of articles reviewed to 72. We used a Q-sort technique for the analysis of identified articles.

Findings

This study reveals that healthcare professionals around the world generally employ (to varying degrees) four broad strategies to manage different types of challenges regarding information, which can be categorized as challenges related to confidentiality, communication, professional duty, and decision-making. The strategies employed for managing these challenges include resolution, consultation, stalling, and disclosure/concealment.

Conclusion

There are a variety of strategies which health professionals can adopt to address challenges regarding information management within the clinical context. This insight complements current efforts aimed at enhancing health professional-patient communication. Very few studies have researched the results of employing these various strategies. Future empirical studies are required to address this.

Abbreviations

CIOMS: Council of International Organization of Medical Sciences; WHO: World Health Organization; AMA: American Medical Association; WMA: World Medical Association; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis; ISCO: International Standard Classification of Occupations; ILO: International Labour Office; SPSS: The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

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.

Respectful care of human dignity: how is it perceived by patients and nurses?

OBJECTIVE

Dignified care protects the patient's rights and provides appropriate ethical care while improving the quality of nursing care. In this context, the opinions of nurses and patients who receive nursing care about dignified care are important. The aim of this study was to explore the opinions and experiences of Turkish patients and nurses about respectful care of human dignity.

METHODS

This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in Turkey. Participants were inpatients at cardiology, neurology and neurosurgery clinics and nurses working in these clinics. The data for the study were collected from face-to-face interviews using questionnaires. The percentages of characteristics and preferences of the participants were calculated, and the results were analysed using statistical tests.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients and 78 nurses participated in the study. The patients stated that the protection of their rights was the most important factor for dignified nursing care. The nurses stated that being careful to not expose the patients' body and being respectful of the patients' privacy were important in dignified nursing care. The age of the patient, duration of the disease, number of hospitalisations and length of time the nurses had been working at the clinic caused significant changes in the factors considered important in dignified care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide a perspective on dignified care in the Turkish healthcare setting. There were some differences between patients and nurses in the factors considered important for dignified care. The discussion with patients and nurses related to care and practices that protect or detract from human dignity can provide insights to ethics.

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

In genetic medicine, a patient's diagnosis can mean their family members are also at risk, raising a question about how consent and confidentiality should function in clinical genetics. This question is particularly pressing when it is unclear whether a patient has shared information. Conventionally, healthcare professionals view confidentiality at an individual level and 'disclosure without consent' as the exception, not the rule. The relational joint account model, by contrast, conceptualises genetic information as confidential at the familial level and encourages professionals to take disclosure as the default position. In this study, we interviewed 33 patients about consent and confidentiality and analysed data thematically. Our first theme showed that although participants thought of certain aspects of genetic conditions--for example, the way they affect day-to-day health--as somewhat personal, they perceived genetic information--for example, the mutation in isolation--as familial. Most thought these elements were separable and thought family members had a right to know the latter, identifying a broad range of harms that would justify disclosure. Our second theme illustrated that participants nonetheless had some concerns about what, if any, implications there would be of professionals treating such information as familial and they emphasised the importance of being informed about the way their information would be shared. Based on these results, we recommend that professionals take disclosure as the default position, but make clear that they will treat genetic information as familial during initial consultations and address any concerns therein.

Social determinants of family health history collection

Family health history (FHH) is the most basic form of genomic information. Although public health efforts have been made to promote FHH collection, empirical data on the extent to which community residents in rural areas actively collect FHH is limited. Therefore, we examined rates of FHH collection in a community-based sample of South Carolina residents. We conducted a structured telephone survey in a random sample of black and white South Carolina residents. Respondents were asked if they had ever actively collected FHH from relatives using an item developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overall, 42 % of respondents reported that they had actively collected their FHH. Blacks were significantly more likely than whites to have collected their FHH in bivariate analysis, but race did not have a significant association with FHH collection in the multivariate model (OR = 1.36, 95 % CI = 0.79, 2.35, p = 0.26). The likelihood of collecting FHH was increased among respondents whose last medical visit occurred in the past year compared to those whose last medical visit was more than 1 year ago (OR = 2.00, 95 % CI = 1.12, 3.56, p = 0.02). In addition, older respondents had a reduced likelihood of collecting their FHH (OR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.53, 0.90, p = .01). Lastly, women were about twice as likely as men to have collected their FHH (OR = 1.83, 95 % CI = 1.12, 2.99, p = 0.02). Greater efforts are needed to increase the collection of FHH information; these efforts may need to target men, the elderly, and individuals who have not had a recent medical visit.

Health-care professionals' responsibility to patients' relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research

Purpose:

The extent of the responsibility of health-care professionals (HCPs) to ensure that patients' relatives are told of their risk is unclear. Current international guidelines take confidentiality to the individual patient as the default position, but some suggest that disclosure could be default and genetic information could be conceptualized as familial.

Genet Med18 4, 290–301.

Methods:

Our systematic review and synthesis of 17 studies explored the attitudes of HCPs, patients, and the public regarding the extent of HCPs' responsibility to relatives with respect to disclosure.

Genet Med18 4, 290–301.

Results:

Health-care professionals generally felt a responsibility to patients' relatives but perceived a variety of reasons why it would be difficult to act on this responsibility. Public/patient views were more wide-ranging. Participants identified several competing and overlapping arguments for and against HCP disclosure: guidelines do not permit/mandate it, privacy, medical benefit, impact on family dynamics, quality of communication, and respecting autonomy.

Genet Med18 4, 290–301.

Conclusion:

We argue that HCPs can sometimes share genetic information without breaching confidentiality and that they could factor into their considerations the potential harm to family dynamics of nondisclosure. However, we need more nuanced research about their responsibilities to relatives, particularly as genomic tests are used more frequently in clinical practice.

Genet Med18 4, 290–301.