Search

Objectives Newborn bloodspot screening ( NBS) panels have expanded to include conditions for which treatment effects are less certain, creating debate about population-based screening criteria. We investigated Canadian public expectations and values regarding the types of conditions that should be included in NBS and whether parents should provide consent. Methods Eight focus groups ( FG; n = 60) included education, deliberative discussion and pre-/post-questionnaires. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Results Quantitatively, the majority supported NBS for serious disorders for which treatment is not available (95-98, 82%). A majority endorsed screening without explicit consent (77-88%) for treatable disorders, but 62% supported unpressured choice for screening for untreatable disorders. Qualitatively, participants valued treatment-related benefits for infants and informational benefits for families. Concern for anxiety, stigma and unwanted knowledge depended upon disease context and strength of countervailing benefits. Conclusions Anticipated benefits of expanded infant screening were prioritized over harms, with information provision perceived as a mechanism for mitigating harms and enabling choice. However, we urge caution around the potential for public enthusiasm to foster unlimited uptake of infant screening technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the importance of intrafamilial communication of hereditary cancer risk has been acknowledged, the factors that promote and act as barriers to patients disclosing their information to their families are complex and emerging. This raises the question: How are patients guided in practice to contemplate intrafamilial communication? Focusing on breast cancer, we conducted an exploratory study examining current resources supporting patients and health-care professionals, and isolated the messages surrounding intrafamilial communication of cancer risk. We find the duty for health-care professionals to counsel patients regarding intrafamilial communication is acknowledged to varying degrees by multiple actors in the cancer care delivery landscape, including health-care professional associations, health service organizations, and patient groups. A range of medical, psychosocial, and other factors underlying intrafamilial communication are acknowledged in messages to patients. Patients, however, are often referred to a single group of health-care professionals to discuss their diverse and complex needs. At the same time, messages aimed at patients appear to place the emphasis on barriers that could exist for patients contemplating intrafamilial communication, while highlighting the benefits families derive from such communication. Taken together, this points to a lack of coherence within materials directed to patients and suggests the need to do coordinated research among stakeholders to address two related issues: (1) determining who are the actors best positioned to send messages surrounding intrafamilial communication to patients and (2) addressing the content of messages conveyed in patient materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obtaining a research participant's voluntary and informed consent is the bedrock of sound ethics practice. Greater inclusion of children in research has led to questions about how paediatric consent operates in practice to accord with current and emerging legal and socio-ethical issues, norms, and requirements. Methods: Employing a qualitative thematic content analysis, we examined paediatric consent forms from major academic centres and public organisations across Canada dated from 2008-2011, which were purposively selected to reflect different types of research ethics boards, participants, and studies. The studies included biobanking, longitudinal studies, and gene-environment studies. Our purpose was to explore the following six emerging issues: (1) whether the scope of parental consent allows for a child's assent, dissent, or future consent; (2) whether the concepts of risk and benefit incorporate the child's psychological and social perspective; (3) whether a child's ability to withdraw is respected and to what extent withdrawal is permitted; (4) whether the return of research results includes individual results and/or incidental findings and the processes involved therein; (5) whether privacy and confidentiality concerns adequately address the child's perspective and whether standard data and/or sample identifiability nomenclature is used; and (6) whether retention of and access to paediatric biological samples and associated medical data are addressed. Results: The review suggests gaps and variability in the consent forms with respect to addressing each of the six issues. Many forms did not discuss the possibility of returning research results, be they individual or general/aggregate results. Forms were also divided in terms of the scope of parental consent (specific versus broad), and none discussed a process for resolving disputes that can arise when either the parents or the child wishes to withdraw from the study. Conclusions: The analysis provides valuable insight and evidence into how consent forms address current ethical issues. While we do not thoroughly explore the contexts and reasons behind consent form gaps and variability, we do advocate and formulate the development of best practices for drafting paediatric health research consent forms. This can greatly ameliorate current gaps and facilitate harmonised and yet contextualised approaches to paediatric health research ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a right to privacy in relation to Canadian paediatric biobanks, and it mentions the legal efforts to control access to and the use of personal information. Privacy legislation and policies are addressed, along with legislative reform and the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of information privacy. Public trust and the legal aspects of third parties are examined, along with the use and transfer of a child's data and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The return of individual research results to participants raises many socio-ethical issues and is even more challenging when the participant is a child. The objective of this article is to present an overview of the few ethical guidelines and relevant literature addressing the return of individual results in pediatric research. By reviewing policies and the literature, we present some overarching considerations and delineate contextual issues in order to propose a framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mentions the need for policies concerning secondary uses of storage of genetic information derived from blood samples taken during newborn health screening. Comparison showing how seven countries store newborn dried blood spots (DBS); The purpose of banking residual DBS and secondary uses of archived samples; The issue of protecting confidentiality; Suggestion that public health agencies develop guidelines defining appropriate use of stored DBS, model consent forms, and educational material for parents to inform them about safeguards regarding access to and use of DBS.

OBJECTIVES: Retaining residual newborn screening (NBS] bloodspots for medical research remains contentious. To inform this debate, we sought to understand public preferences for, and reasons for preferring, alternative policy options. METHODS: We assessed preferences among 4 policy options for research use of residual bloodspots through a bilingual national Internet survey of a representative sample of Canadians. Fifty percent of respondents were randomly assigned to select reasons supporting these preferences. Understanding of and attitudes toward screening and research concepts, and demographics were assessed. RESULTS: Of 1102 respondents (94% participation rate; 47% completion rate], the overall preference among policy options was ask permission (67%]; this option was also the most acceptable choice (80%]. Assume permission was acceptable to 46%, no permission required was acceptable to 29%, and no research allowed was acceptable to 26%. The acceptability of the ask permission option was reduced among participants assigned to the reasoning exercise (84% vs 76%; P = .004]. Compared with assume/no permission required, ordered logistic regression showed a significant reduction in preference for the ask permission option with greater understanding of concepts (odds ratio, 0.87; P < .001], greater confidence in science (odds ratio, 0.16; P < .001], and a perceived responsibility to contribute to research (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .001]. CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed Canadians prefer that explicit permission is sought for storage and research use of NBS bloodspots. This preference was diminished when reasons supporting and opposing routine storage, and other policy options, were presented. Findings warrant consideration as NBS communities strategize to respond to shifting legislative contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]