Search

In the Netherlands, the call to add 'non-treatable' disorders to the newborn bloodspot screening programme has found a sympathetic ear with the Government. In 2019, the Health Council of the Netherlands was formally asked for advice on the conditions under which bloodspot screening for such disorders might be offered. Here we present the reasoning and the recommendations of the resulting report, and briefly discuss its reception. The report holds on to the classical view that screening must benefit the child, but argues for a wider account of child benefit than only in terms of substantial health gains. However, screening for 'non-treatable' disorders would still require evidence of a favourable benefits to harm ratio. The report presents a framework for such screening, but concludes that apart perhaps from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), no or only very few 'non-treatable' disorders would at present meet its criteria. Setting up a screening programme that might benefit only a small percentage of families struggling with uncertainty about their child's diagnosis would not seem proportional. Instead, the Government is advised to invest in a better infrastructure for early referral, testing and care. The reaction to the report from proponents of such screening shows that the dividing line in the debate is not about whether screening neonates for 'non-treatable' disorders is acceptable in itself. It is rather whether such screening should be regarded as catering to a parental 'right to know', or as a public health service that should be subject to standards of evidence and proportionality., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Introduction: International sharing of health data opens the door to the study of the so-called 'Big Data', which holds great promise for improving patient-centred care. Failure of recent data sharing initiatives indicates an urgent need to invest in societal trust in researchers and institutions. Key to an informed understanding of such a 'social license' is identifying the views patients and the public may hold with regard to data sharing for health research., Methods: We performed a narrative review of the empirical evidence addressing patients' and public views and attitudes towards the use of health data for research purposes. The literature databases PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched in April 2019 to identify relevant publications. Patients' and public attitudes were extracted from selected references and thematically categorised., Results: Twenty-seven papers were included for review, including both qualitative and quantitative studies and systematic reviews. Results suggest widespread-though conditional-support among patients and the public for data sharing for health research. Despite the fact that participants recognise actual or potential benefits of data research, they expressed concerns about breaches of confidentiality and potential abuses of the data. Studies showed agreement on the following conditions: value, privacy, risk minimisation, data security, transparency, control, information, trust, responsibility and accountability., Conclusions: Our results indicate that a social license for data-intensive health research cannot simply be presumed. To strengthen the social license, identified conditions ought to be operationalised in a governance framework that incorporates the diverse patient and public values, needs and interests., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)