Search

As a cornerstone of public health, epidemiology has lately undergone substantial changes enabled by, among other factors, the use of biobank infrastructures. In biobank-related research, the return of results to participants constitutes an important and complex ethical question. In this study, we qualitatively investigated how individuals perceive the results returned following their participation in cohort studies with biobanks. In our semi-structured interviews with 31 participants of two such German studies, we observed that some participants overestimate the nature of the personal information they will receive from the study. Although this misestimation does not seem to jeopardize the validity of the consent provided at recruitment, it may still represent a threat for participants' trust in research and thus their long-term commitment, crucial for such studies. We argue that such misestimation may have ethical consequences on the principles guiding the reflection on the return of results in biobank research, i.e. autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and reciprocity. We suggest that shifting from the idea of directly benefiting participants through the return of research results could help focusing on benefiting society as a whole, thereby increasing research trustworthiness of population-based studies using biobanks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While integrating genomic sequencing into clinical care carries clear medical benefits, it also raises difficult ethical questions. Compared to traditional sequencing technologies, genomic sequencing and analysis is more likely to identify unsolicited findings (UF) and variants that cannot be classified as benign or disease-causing (variants of uncertain significance; VUS). UF and VUS pose new challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) who are obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing from patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 GHPs across Europe, Australia and Canada to identify some of these challenges. Our results show that GHPs find it difficult to prepare patients to receive results because a vast amount of information is required to fully inform patients about VUS and UF. GHPs also struggle to engage patients – many of whom may be focused on ending their 'diagnostic odyssey' – in the informed consent process in a meaningful way. Thus, some questioned how 'informed' patients actually are when they agree to undergo clinical genomic sequencing. These findings suggest a tension remains between sufficient information provision at the risk of overwhelming the patient and imparting less information at the risk of uninformed decision-making. We suggest that a shift away from 'fully informed consent' toward an approach aimed at realizing, as far as possible, the underlying goals that informed consent is meant to promote. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Studying the contribution of individual countries to leading journals in a specific discipline can highlight which countries have the most impact on that discipline and whether a geographic bias exists. This article aims to examine the international distribution of publications in the field of bioethics. Methods Retrospective quantitative study of nine peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics and medical ethics (Bioethics, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Hastings Center Report, Journal of Clinical Ethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Nursing Ethics, Christian Bioethics, and Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics). Results In total, 4,029 articles published between 1990 and 2003 were retrieved from the nine bioethical journals under study. The United States (59.3%, n = 2390), the United Kingdom (13.5%, n = 544), Canada (4%, n = 160) and Australia (3.8%, n = 154) had the highest number of publications in terms of absolute number of publications. When normalized to population size, smaller affluent countries, such as New Zealand, Finland and Sweden were more productive than the United States. The number of studies originating from the USA was decreasing in the period between 1990 and 2003. Conclusion While a lot of peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics profile themselves as international journals, they certainly do not live up to what one would expect from an "international" journal. The fact that English speaking countries, and to a larger extent American authors, dominate the international journals in the field of bioethics is a clear geographic bias towards the bioethical discussions that are going on in these journals.

Despite widespread use of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical care, there has been little exploration of actual experiences of genetic health professionals (GHPs) using GS in clinical practice worldwide. To address this, semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 31 clinical geneticists and genetic counselors across Europe, Australia, and Canada to explore their experiences with returning results from GS to patients. GHPs remarked that patients' reactions to receiving causative results vary; some patients are relieved or appreciative at identification of a genetic cause, while others express frustration that finding an answer does not lead to a treatment. GHPs discussed the importance of managing expectations in pre‐test counseling to minimize disappointment. Although some patients experience mild distress, they generally cope well receiving unsolicited findings and appreciate being informed of their increased risk. While many GHPs felt patients understand what a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) means, a proportion found VUS quite difficult to convey and had concerns for patients' level of understanding. A proportion mentioned concerns regarding potential negative repercussions of non‐genetic clinicians misinterpreting the significance of VUS. These results provide important insights into the challenges GHPs can experience returning GS results to patients, highlighting a need for additional training for GHPs and non‐genetic clinicians. [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]