Search

Growing discussion on the use of whole-genome or exome sequencing (WG/ES) in newborn screening (NBS) has raised concerns regarding the generation of incidental information on millions of infants annually. It is unknown whether integrating WG/ES would alter public expectations regarding participation in universal NBS. We assessed public willingness to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with current NBS. Our secondary objective was to assess the public's beliefs regarding a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS compared with current NBS. We examined self-reported attitudes regarding willingness to participate in NBS using a cross-sectional national survey of Canadian residents recruited through an internet panel, reflective of the Canadian population by age, gender and region. Our results showed that fewer respondents would be willing to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with NBS using current technologies (80 vs 94%, P<0.001), or perceived a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS vs current NBS (30 vs 48%, P<0.001). Our findings suggest that integrating WG/ES into NBS might reduce participation, and challenge the moral authority that NBS programmes rely upon to ensure population benefits. These findings point to the need for caution in the untargeted use of WG/ES in public health contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a reported effort to define the scope of public engagement in regards to a "right not to know" in public health genomics as of March 2014. Autonomy and an individual's rights are addressed in relation to bioethics, personal genetic information, and the promotion of the common good. Transparency and communication are mentioned in regards to democratic participation in health policy decision-making. Disease development and genetic susceptibility are also examined.

The article offers an overview on the regulatory framework for pharmacogenomic tests in Canada, the U.S., and Europe. It examines the different regulatory pathways for pharmacogenomic tests commercialized as test kits and laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). It evaluates the issues related to the regulatory framework and its impact in relation to meeting the goals of promoting the advancement of pharmacogenomics and ensuring public safety.

While newborn blood spot screening has historically been viewed as a public health success, the potential harms and benefits are more finely balanced for new conditions being considered for program expansion. We highlight complex issues that must be addressed in policy decisions, which in turn requires a consideration of many stakeholder perspectives. Using national policy documents from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and Canada, we describe the participation of stakeholder organizations in the newborn screening policy process, how such organizations have incorporated stakeholder views into their own policy writing, and their recommendations for inclusiveness. Stakeholder participation in newborn screening decision-making is widely acknowledged as important, and many methods have been endorsed – consultation as well as direct or indirect input into policy development. Differences across organizations and jurisdictions raise questions about the most effective approaches for facilitating inclusiveness, suggesting a need for formal evaluative research.Journal of Public Health Policy (2008) 29, 121–142. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200161 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Newborn screening (NBS) programs may store bloodspot samples and use them for secondary purposes. Recent public controversies and lawsuits over storage and secondary uses underscore the need to engage the public on these issues. We explored Canadian values regarding storage and use of NBS samples for various purposes and the forms of parental choice for anonymous research with NBS samples. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods, public engagement study comprising 8 focus groups (n = 60), an educational component, deliberative discussion, and pre- and post-questionnaires assessing knowledge and values toward storage and parental choice. RESULTS: Canadian citizens supported the storage of NBS samples for quality control, confirmatory diagnosis, and future anonymous research (>90%). There was broad support for use of NBS samples for anonymous research; however, opinions were split about the extent of parental decision-making. Support for a "routinized" approach rested on trust in authorities, lack of concern for harms, and an assertion that the population's interest took priority over the interests of individuals. Discomfort stemmed from distrust in authorities, concern for harms, and prioritizing individual interests, which supported more substantive parental choice. Consensus emerged regarding the need for greater transparency about the storage and secondary use of samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides novel insights into the values that underpin citizens' acceptance and discomfort with routine storage of NBS samples for research, and supports the need to develop well- designed methods of public education and civic discourse on the risks and benefits of the retention and secondary use of NBS samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]