Search

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the different manifestations and navigations of uncertainty in the practice of diagnostic next‐generation sequencing (NGS) testing. Drawing upon multi‐sited fieldwork conducted at a large Centre for Human Genetics in Belgium, we analyse how uncertainty takes shape and is managed in the different steps of the diagnostic process: starting from the testing offer, to the analysis in the lab, the multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) and ending with the consultation with the patient. Building on interviews with genetic healthcare professionals and their patients and observations in consultations and MDTs, our empirical work underlines the duality of uncertainty as both burdensome and productive. Building on the existing literature on uncertainty in medicine and NGS, our analysis shows the ontological politics at play in the everyday uncertainty work in this CHG. We show how the, at times, contrasting ways of dealing with uncertainty lead to friction but also result in constructive negotiation and collaboration between actors, making use of multiple types of evidence and expertise. By not only minimising but also sustaining or inviting uncertainty, genetic healthcare professionals are able to advance the practices around NGS in a way that matches their multidisciplinary understandings, considerations and more normative stances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The supply of human organs available for transplantation remains grossly inadequate globally. Animal‐to‐human transplantation, and even more so humanized organ grown in animals, holds promising results for the start of clinical trials in humans. Very little is known about the public's willingness to accept different xenotransplantation techniques. This study aims to determine attitudes toward human‐to‐human transplantation, animal‐to‐human transplantation, and chimera‐to‐human transplantation in the Belgium context. Methods: Secondary school students from Flanders, Belgium, were surveyed between January and June 2019. Socio‐demographic details likely to influence participants' attitudes were gathered. Participants were presented with three hypothetical cases (human‐to‐human transplantation, animal‐to‐human transplantation, and chimera‐to‐human transplantation) and asked about their willingness to accept the particular organ. Their risk appetite to accept organs with potentially worse outcomes than the status quo was also evaluated. Results: Seven hundred forty‐one complete questionnaires were analyzed. It can be concluded that Flemish secondary school students favored the techniques of xenotransplantation to a lesser extent than allotransplantation; however, most of them did consider it a good solution for organ shortage. Compared to animal‐to‐human transplantation, chimera‐to‐human transplantation showed a more positive attitude among the respondents when considered a good organ transplantation solution. Conclusion: Flemish secondary school students favored the techniques of xenotransplantation to a lesser extent than allotransplantation; however, most of them did consider it a good solution for organ shortage. In comparison to animal‐to‐human transplantation, chimera‐to‐human transplantation showed a more positive attitude among the respondents when considered a good solution for organ transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Through carrier screening, prospective parents can acquire information about whether they have an increased risk of conceiving a child affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked condition. Within the last decade, advances in genomic technologies have facilitated a shift from condition-directed carrier screening to expanded carrier screening (ECS). Following the introduction of ECS, several studies have been performed to gauge the interest in this new technology among individuals and couples in the general population.Objective and Rationale: The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence from empirical studies that assess the interest in ECS among individuals and couples in the general population. As the availability and accessibility of ECS grow, more couples who are a priori not at risk based on their personal or family history will be presented with the choice to accept or decline such an offer. Their attitudes and beliefs, as well as the perceived usefulness of this screening modality, will likely determine whether ECS is to become a widespread reproductive genetic test.Search Methods: Four databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) were systematically searched to identify English language studies performed between January 2009 and January 2019 using the following search terms: carrier screening, carrier testing, attitudes, intention, interest, views, opinions, perspectives and uptake. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported on intentions to undergo a (hypothetical) ECS test, uptake of an actual ECS offer or both. Two researchers performed a multistep selection process independently for validation purposes.Outcomes: Twelve empirical studies performed between 2015 and 2019 were included for analysis. The studies originated from the USA (n = 6), the Netherlands (n = 3), Belgium (n = 1), Sweden (n = 1) and Australia (n = 1). The sample size of the studies varied from 80 to 1669. In the included studies, 32%-76% of respondents were interested in a (hypothetical) ECS test, while uptake rates for actual ECS offers ranged from 8% to 50%. The highest overall uptake was observed when ECS was offered to pregnant women (50%). By contrast, studies focusing on the preconception population reported lower overall uptake rates (8-34%) with the exception of one study where women were counseled preconception in preparation for IVF (68.7%).Wider Implications: Our findings suggest that there may be discrepancies between prospective parents' reported intentions to undergo ECS and their actual uptake, particularly during the preconception period. As ECS is a new and relatively unknown test for most future parents, the awareness and comprehension within the general population could be rather limited. Adequate pre- and post-test counseling services should be made available to couples offered ECS to ensure informed reproductive decision-making, together with guidelines for primary health care professionals. Due to restricted nature of the samples and methods of the underlying primary studies, some of the reported results might not be transferable to a broader population. More research is needed to see if the observed trends also apply to a broader and more diverse population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore informed choice in reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS).Methods: Women visiting a gynaecologist practice in Flanders (Belgium) were asked to consider participation in a study where RGCS was offered for free to them and their male partner. A modified Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice was used to determine whether couples who opted for RGCS made an informed choice. In addition, we assessed risk perception, feelings towards RGCS, anxiety and decisional conflict.Results: Most participants (82 %, n = 63/77) made an informed choice with regard to RGCS according to our modified MMIC. Thirteen participants made an uninformed choice due to insufficient knowledge and one participant because of insufficient knowledge and value-inconsistency. Anxiety scores were elevated for three participants. Two participants presented with decisional conflict.Conclusion: Our results show high rates of informed choice among non-pregnant couples who were offered RGCS in a research study and received up to 30 min of pre-test counseling.Practice Implications: Limited resources outside a research context may impact informed choice. Pre-test counselling initiatives for RGCS should ideally be organized in such a way that information can be provided at multiple time points to avoid information overload and to allow for a reflection period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Results from genomic sequencing often have implications not just for patients but also for their relatives. To date, there are no studies in Belgium exploring whether potential relatives would want to be informed of a genetic risk in the family and their preferences on different approaches to disclosure. We surveyed the attitudes of the Flemish general population (n = 407) towards receiving genetic information from their family members, including attitudes towards breaches in confidentiality, preferences for who communicates genetic risk and how the information is communicated, and policy approaches to nondisclosure. Most participants wanted to be informed of their genetic risk and receive genetic testing to confirm their diagnosis. Most preferred to be informed of genetic risk by a close family member, but that when given the choice between a distant family member and a clinician, most participants preferred to be contacted by a clinician. In Belgium there is currently no clear legal pathway for clinicians to directly initiate contact with at-risk relatives, but the responses from members of the Flemish population analyzed in this study indicate that this approach to disclosure of genetic risk deserves further consideration. Our findings indicate that the general population would support legislation allowing clinicians to inform relatives even in cases where the patient did not want to inform them. As this is not currently allowed in Belgium, policy alternatives should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Question: What are the perspectives of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) patients in Belgium on the ethics of PGT for polygenic risk scoring (PGT-P)?, Design: In-depth interviews (18 in total, 10 couples, 8 women, n = 28) were performed with patients who had undergone treatment with PGT for monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M) or chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) between 2017 and 2019 in Belgium. Participants were asked about their own experiences with PGT-M/SR and about their viewpoints on PGT-P, including their own interest and their ideas on its desirability, scope and consequences. Inductive content analysis was used to analyse the interviews., Results: Participants stated that their experiences with PGT-M/SR had been physically, psychologically and practically difficult. Most participants stated that, partly because of these difficulties, they did not see the added value of knowing the risk scores of embryos via PGT-P. Many participants worried that PGT-P could lead to additional anxieties, responsibilities and complex choices in reproduction and parenthood. They argued that not everything should be controlled and felt that PGT-P, especially non-medical and broad screening, was going too far. With regards to the clinical implementation of PGT-P, participants in general preferred PGT-P to be limited to people with a serious polygenic family history and wanted embryo selection decisions to be made by healthcare professionals., Conclusions: This study shows that individuals with experience of PGT-M/SR saw PGT-P as different from PGT-M/SR. They had various ethical concerns with regards to PGT-P, especially regarding broadly offering PGT-P. These stakeholder viewpoints need to be considered regarding potential PGT-P implementation and guidelines., (Copyright © 2024 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows for the identification of couples who have an increased likelihood of conceiving a child with a particular autosomal recessive or X-linked condition. The aim of this study was to assess the level of satisfaction, anxiety, knowledge retention, psychosocial and counseling-related aspects among couples who chose to have RGCS. Participants were initially informed about their screening results by telephone. After obtaining a written report of test results, participants were asked to complete an individual self-administered questionnaire. All participants (n = 67) felt they had enough information to make an informed choice. None of the participants regretted their choice to have RGCS. Test results were most often shared with parents (61%) or siblings (37%). Our findings demonstrate that the information/counseling and reporting strategy that was used in the context of this study led to high participant satisfaction, an increase in knowledge over time and favorable psychosocial and counseling-related outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Through carrier screening couples at-risk of conceiving a child with an autosomal recessive or X-linked condition can be identified prior to conception. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge, attitudes and preferences regarding reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) among reproductive-aged men and women in Flanders (Belgium). Women and men of reproductive age visiting their pharmacist were invited to answer a self-administered questionnaire. Prior to filling in the questionnaire, participants were asked to read an information leaflet explaining some key concepts about RGCS. Our sample included 387 individuals of reproductive age, of which 68.5% were female and 31.5% were male. Most of the participants were below 34 years old (72.9%), didn't have children (68.6%) and were currently in a relationship (69.1%). Offering RGCS to couples that want to have children was found acceptable by 86% of participants. However, fewer participants would consider RGCS for themselves in the future (61%). We observed a positive correlation between attitude score/knowledge score and the intention to have RGCS. Half of the participants (50.9%) preferred the disclosure of individual test results. Most of participants indicated that RGCS should be offered through the gynecologist (81.1%), followed by the GP (71.5%) and the Centre for Human Genetics (64.8%). About 68.9% of participants were willing to pay out-of-pocket for an RGCS test. We recommend that RGCS should ideally be implemented through a tailored implementation strategy whereby individual needs and preferences can be taken into account., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows to identify couples who have an increased likelihood of conceiving a child affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked monogenic condition. Multiple studies have reported on a wide and fragmented set of reasons to accept or decline RGCS. Only a few studies have been performed to assess the uptake of RGCS. Nonpregnant women visiting their gynecologist were invited to complete a questionnaire assessing perceived susceptibility, the acceptability of offering RGCS, attitudes, the intention to participate in RGCS, reasons to accept or decline RGCS, and sociodemographic characteristics. Women who showed the intention to have RGCS were asked to consider a free RGCS offer. Most women (n = 127) were between 25 and 34 years old (60%), in a relationship (91%), and wanted to have children (65%). Study participants had positive attitudes towards RGCS and the intention to consider RGCS in the future. Reasons to accept RGCS were being able to share genetic information with children or relatives (n = 104/127, 82%), to prevent the birth of a child affected with a hereditary condition (n = 103/127, 81%), and/or to know the chance of conceiving a child with a hereditary condition (n = 102/127, 80%). Reasons for declining RGCS were the possible concerns that could arise when receiving test results (n = 27/127, 21%), having no family history of hereditary disorders (n = 19/127, 15%), and not wanting to take action based on test results (n = 13/127, 10%). Among test intenders that met the inclusion criteria, 53% decided to participate in RGCS together with their male reproductive partner. More in-depth research on the decision-making process behind the choice to accept or decline an RGCS offer would be highly valuable to make sure couples are making informed reproductive choices., (© 2022 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Findings from genomic sequencing can have important implications for patients and relatives. For this reason, most professional guidelines support that patients have an ethical duty to inform relatives and, when disclosure does not occur, most guidelines allow health-care professionals (HCPs) to breach confidentiality. Translating the ethical duties to respect the patient's confidentiality and prevent harm in at-risk relatives into legislation is a complex issue due to the both personal and familial nature of genetic information. In many countries there is no specific guideline or law addressing family communication of genetic information and thus it is unclear what duties patients and HCPs have towards at-risk relatives. Using Belgium as an example for countries in which this is the case, we examined the existing Belgian legislation in relation to three central topics: (1) patients' duties to family members, (2) respect for patient confidentiality and privacy, and (3) HCPs' duties to family members. We then investigated international legal frameworks and compared it with the Belgian context to see to what degree international precedent could aid in the interpretation of Belgian law. Based on our review of the legislation, we make recommendations for the interpretation of current law and examine whether there is sufficient legal precedent to answer the questions central to family communication of genetic information. Although we focus on the specific Belgian legislation, the discussions are relevant for many other countries that have similar legislative approaches., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Aim: Despite a considerable interest in expanded carrier screening (ECS) in the general population, actual uptake of ECS remains low. More insights are needed to better understand the perspectives of reproductive-aged individuals. Materials & methods: Nonpregnant women of reproductive age recruited through public pharmacies throughout Flanders (Belgium) were invited to participate in an online survey. Results: Most participants (63.6%) indicated they would consider ECS for themselves in the future. About one in two participants showed a positive attitude toward ECS. Conclusion: This study reports valuable insights in the perspectives of nonpregnant reproductive-aged women in Flanders (Belgium) regarding ECS that can be used in the ongoing debate on the responsible implementation of ECS.

In order to study the relationship between genes and diseases, the increasing availability and sharing of phenotypic and genotypic data have been promoted as an imperative within the scientific community. In parallel with data sharing practices by clinicians and researchers, recent initiatives have been observed in which individuals are sharing personal genomic data. The involvement of individuals in such initiatives is facilitated by the increased accessibility of personal genomic data, offered by private test providers along with availability of online networks. Personal webpages and on-line data sharing platforms such as Consent to Research (Portable Legal Consent), Free the Data, and Genomes Unzipped are being utilized to host and share genotypes, electronic health records and family history uploaded by individuals. Although personal genomic data sharing initiatives vary in nature, the emphasis on the individuals' control on their data in order to benefit research and ultimately health care has seen as a key theme across these initiatives. In line with the growing practice of personal genomic data sharing, this paper aims to shed light on the potential challenges surrounding these initiatives. As in the course of these initiatives individuals are solicited to individually balance the risks and benefits of sharing their genomic data, their awareness of the implications of personal genomic data sharing for themselves and their family members is a necessity. Furthermore, given the sensitivity of genomic data and the controversies around their complete de-identifiability, potential privacy risks and harms originating from unintended uses of data have to be taken into consideration.