Search

Abstract Background Non-therapeutic trials in which terminally ill cancer patients are asked to undergo procedures such as biopsies or venipunctures for research purposes, have become increasingly important to learn more about how cancer cells work and to realize the full potential of clinical research. Considering that implementing non-therapeutic studies is not likely to result in direct benefits for the patient, some authors are concerned that involving patients in such research may be exploitive of vulnerable patients and should not occur at all, or should be greatly restricted, while some proponents doubt whether such restrictions are appropriate. Our objective was to explore clinician-researcher attitudes and concerns when recruiting patients who are in advanced stages of cancer into non-therapeutic research. Methods We conducted a qualitative exploratory study by carrying out open-ended interviews with health professionals, including physicians, research nurses, and study coordinators. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Analysis was carried out using grounded theory. Results The analysis of the interviews unveiled three prominent themes: 1) ethical considerations; 2) patient-centered issues; 3) health professional issues. Respondents identified ethical issues surrounding autonomy, respect for persons, beneficence, non-maleficence, discrimination, and confidentiality; bringing to light that patients contribute to science because of a sense of altruism and that they want reassurance before consenting. Several patient-centered and health professional issues are having an impact on the recruitment of patients for non-therapeutic research. Facilitators were most commonly associated with patient-centered issues enhancing communication, whereas barriers in non-therapeutic research were most often professionally based, including the doctor-patient relationship, time constraints, and a lack of education and training in research. Conclusions This paper aims to contribute to debates on the overall challenges of recruiting patients to non-therapeutic research. This exploratory study identified general awareness of key ethical issues, as well as key facilitators and barriers to the recruitment of patients to non-therapeutic studies. Due to the important role played by clinicians and clinician-researchers in the recruitment of patients, it is essential to facilitate a greater understanding of the challenges faced; to promote effective communication; and to encourage educational research training programs.

The notion of a "serious" genetic condition is commonly used in clinical contexts, laws, and policies to define and delineate both the permissibility of and, access to, reproductive genomic technologies. Yet, the notion lacks conceptual and operational clarity, which can lead to its inconsistent appraisal and application. A common understanding of the relevant considerations of "serious" is lacking. This article addresses this conceptual gap. We begin by outlining existing distinctions around the notion of "serious" that will factor into its appraisal and need to be navigated, in the context of prenatal testing and the use of reproductive genomic technologies. These include tensions between clinical care and population health; the impact of categorizing a condition as "serious"; and the role of perception of quality of life. We then propose a set of four core dimensions and four procedural elements that can serve as a conceptual tool to prompt a mapping of the features of seriousness in any given context. Ultimately, consideration of these core dimensions and procedural elements may lead to improvements in the quality and consistency of decision-making where the seriousness of a genetic condition is a pivotal component at both a policy and practice level., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Scientific research is becoming an increasingly collaborative and global venture. The Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative (HeLTI), for instance, is an international Developmental Origins of Health and Disease research collaboration developed to address the increasing burden of noncommunicable diseases around the world. It comprises four separate but harmonized cohort trials in Canada, China, India, and South Africa. These cohorts will generate rich data and biosample sets that can be shared both within the HeLTI Consortium and with other researchers from around the world. Methods: To ensure the coordination and operation of these types of collaborative research initiatives, a standardized and harmonized governance model is required to regulate the processes and interactions between all involved actors. To develop the governance models, frameworks and related policies from other longitudinal cohort studies and biobanks were used, as were guidance documents on biobank and database governance and relevant literature on data and biobank governance. Results: This article outlines the key components of the governance model for the HeLTI Consortium, including management of the cohorts' respective databases and biobanks, access to data and biosamples, and considerations related to intellectual property and publications. Conclusion: Governance within international collaborative research ventures is critical to ensure the operations and benefits of these types of research apparatuses. Although this article focuses on the HeLTI Consortium as a model, it may nonetheless serve as a model for both current and future collaborative consortium-based research initiatives. Clinical Trial Registration Numbers: Canada, ISRCTN13308752; China, ChiCTR1800017773; India, ISRCTN20161479; South Africa, PACTR201903750173871.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally., Methods: We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date., Results: There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States., Conclusion: There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the Canadian Alliance for Healthy Hearts and Minds (CAHHM) cohort, participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, heart, and abdomen, that generated incidental findings (IFs). The approach to managing these unexpected results remain a complex issue. Our objectives were to describe the CAHHM policy for the management of IFs, to understand the impact of disclosing IFs to healthy research participants, and to reflect on the ethical obligations of researchers in future MRI studies., Methods: Between 2013 and 2019, 8252 participants (mean age 58 ± 9 years, 54% women) were recruited with a follow-up questionnaire administered to 909 participants (40% response rate) at 1-year. The CAHHM policy followed a restricted approach, whereby routine feedback on IFs was not provided. Only IFs of severe structural abnormalities were reported., Results: Severe structural abnormalities occurred in 8.3% (95% confidence interval 7.7-8.9%) of participants, with the highest proportions found in the brain (4.2%) and abdomen (3.1%). The majority of participants (97%) informed of an IF reported no change in quality of life, with 3% of participants reporting that the knowledge of an IF negatively impacted their quality of life. Furthermore, 50% reported increased stress in learning about an IF, and in 95%, the discovery of an IF did not adversely impact his/her life insurance policy. Most participants (90%) would enrol in the study again and perceived the MRI scan to be beneficial, regardless of whether they were informed of IFs. While the implications of a restricted approach to IF management was perceived to be mostly positive, a degree of diagnostic misconception was present amongst participants, indicating the importance of a more thorough consent process to support participant autonomy., Conclusion: The management of IFs from research MRI scans remain a challenging issue, as participants may experience stress and a reduced quality of life when IFs are disclosed. The restricted approach to IF management in CAHHM demonstrated a fair fulfillment of the overarching ethical principles of respect for autonomy, concern for wellbeing, and justice. The approach outlined in the CAHHM policy may serve as a framework for future research studies. Clinical trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02220582 ., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this., Methods: We analyse the 'Your DNA, Your Say' online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle- and high-income countries, gathered in 15 languages. We examine how participants perceived the relative value of measures to demonstrate the trustworthiness of those using donated DNA and/or medical information. We examine between-country variation and present a consolidated ranking of measures., Results: Providing transparent information about who will benefit from data access was the most important measure to increase trust, endorsed by more than 50% of participants across 20 of 22 countries. It was followed by the option to withdraw data and transparency about who is using data and why. Variation was found for the importance of measures, notably information about sanctions for misuse of data-endorsed by 5% in India but almost 60% in Japan. A clustering analysis suggests alignment between some countries in the assessment of specific measures, such as the UK and Canada, Spain and Mexico and Portugal and Brazil. China and Russia are less closely aligned with other countries in terms of the value of the measures presented., Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of transparency about data use and about the goals and potential benefits associated with data sharing, including to whom such benefits accrue. They show that members of the public value knowing what benefits accrue from the use of data. The study highlights the importance of locally sensitive measures to increase trust as genomic data sharing continues globally.

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Public acceptance is critical for sharing of genomic data at scale. This paper examines how acceptance of data sharing pertains to the perceived similarities and differences between DNA and other forms of personal data. It explores the perceptions of representative publics from the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia (n = 8967) towards the donation of DNA and health data. Fifty-two percent of this public held 'exceptionalist' views about genetics (i.e., believed DNA is different or 'special' compared to other types of medical information). This group was more likely to be familiar with or have had personal experience with genomics and to perceive DNA information as having personal as well as clinical and scientific value. Those with personal experience with genetics and genetic exceptionalist views were nearly six times more likely to be willing to donate their anonymous DNA and medical information for research than other respondents. Perceived harms from re-identification did not appear to dissuade publics from being willing to participate in research. The interplay between exceptionalist views about genetics and the personal, scientific and clinical value attributed to data would be a valuable focus for future research.

Human germline genome editing may prove to be especially poignant for members of the rare disease community, many of whom are diagnosed with monogenic diseases. This community lacks broad representation in the literature surrounding genome editing, notably in Canada, yet is likely to be directly affected by eventual clinical applications of this technology. Although not generalizable, the literature does offer some commonalities regarding the experiences of rare disease patients. This manuscript seeks to contribute to the search for broader societal dialogue surrounding human germline genome editing by exploring some of those commonalities that comfort the notion that CRISPR may hold promise or be desirable for some members of this community. We first explore the legal and policy context surrounding germline genome editing, focusing closely on Canada, then provide an overview of the common challenges experienced by members of the rare disease community, and finally assess the opportunities of germline genome editing vis-à-vis rare disease as we advocate for the need to more actively engage with the community in our search for public engagement.

In this reply, we wish to defend our original position and address several of the points raised by two excellent responses. The first response (De Miguel Beriain) questions the relevance of the notion of 'serious' within the context of human germline genome modification (HGGM). We argue that the 'serious' factor is relevant and that there is a need for medical and social lenses to delineate the limits of acceptability and initial permissible applications of HGGM. In this way, 'serious' acts as a starting point for further discussions and debates on the acceptability of the potential clinical translation of HGGM. Therefore, there is a pressing need to clarify its scope, from a regulatory perspective, so as to prevent individuals from using HGGM for non-therapeutic or enhancement purposes. The second response (Kalsi) criticizes the narrow interpretation of the objectivist approach and the apparent bias towards material innovations when discussing the right to benefit from scientific advancements. As an in-depth discussion of the objectivist and constructivist approaches was beyond the scope of our original paper, we chose to focus on one specific objectivist account, one which focuses on biological and scientific facts. We agree, however, with the critique that material innovations should not be the sole focus of the right to benefit from scientific advancements, which also incorporates freedom of scientific research and access to scientific knowledge scientific freedom and knowledge, including the influence of these on ethical thinking and cultures., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Trust may be important in shaping public attitudes to genetics and intentions to participate in genomics research and big data initiatives. As such, we examined trust in data sharing among the general public. A cross-sectional online survey collected responses from representative publics in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia (n = 8967). Participants were most likely to trust their medical doctor and less likely to trust other entities named. Company researchers were least likely to be trusted. Low, Variable and High Trust classes were defined using latent class analysis. Members of the High Trust class were more likely to be under 50 years, male, with children, hold religious beliefs, have personal experience of genetics and be from the USA. They were most likely to be willing to donate their genomic and health data for clinical and research uses. The Low Trust class were less reassured than other respondents by laws preventing exploitation of donated information. Variation in trust, its relation to areas of concern about the use of genomic data and potential of legislation are considered. These findings have relevance for efforts to expand genomic medicine and data sharing beyond those with personal experience of genetics or research participants.

Approximately 80% of rare and often incurable and serious conditions affect newborns and children, and roughly half of all rare diseases are considered to have an onset in childhood. Somatic gene therapies are already in clinical trials for spinal muscular atrophy, beta thalassemia, and macular degeneration. If proven to be safe and effective, could heritable genome editing be seen as a form of preventive personalized medicine and as fostering the right to health of the child? The latest calls for global moratoria on clinical applications of heritable genome editing are troubling in that they may create an illusion of control over rogue science and stifle the necessary international debate surrounding an ethically responsible translational path forward. Children are people with distinct rights and interests. An arbitrary moratorium neither fosters their best interests or health nor respects their right to benefit from the advancements of science.

Current advances in assisted reproductive technologies aim to promote the health and well-being of future children. They offer the possibility to select embryos with the greatest potential of being born healthy (eg, preimplantation genetic testing) and may someday correct faulty genes responsible for heritable diseases in the embryo (eg, human germline genome modification (HGGM)). Most laws and policy statements surrounding HGGM refer to the notion of 'serious' as a core criterion in determining what genetic diseases should be targeted by these technologies. Yet, this notion remains vague and poorly defined, rendering its application challenging and decision making subjective and arbitrary. By way of background, we begin by briefly presenting two conceptual approaches to 'health' and 'disease': objectivism (ie, based on biological facts) and constructivism (ie, based on human values). The basic challenge under both is sorting out whether and to what extent social and environmental factors have a role in helping to define what qualifies as a 'serious' disease beyond the medical criteria. We then focus on how a human rights framework (eg, right to science and right to the highest attainable health) could integrate the concepts of objectivism and constructivism so as to provide guidance for a more actionable consideration of 'serious'. Ultimately, it could be argued that a human rights framework, by way of its legally binding nature and its globally accepted norms and values, provides a more universal foundation for discussions of the ethical, legal and social implications of emerging or disruptive technologies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act is long overdue for Parliamentary review. We argue that the current regulation of research using human reproductive materials is not proportionate, not responsive to the uncertain threats posed to human and environmental health and safety, and is not considerate of diverse values in a democratic society. We propose tailored regulatory carve-outs for in vitro research for currently prohibited activities, such as gene editing, and for the exercise of Ministerial Discretion for access by Canadians to experimental in vivo interventions that are currently prohibited, such as mitochondrial replacement therapy. Our recommendations are bounded by constitutional constraints that recognize political and practical challenges in keeping oversight of this research under Federal jurisdiction, whether conducted in academic or private sectors. The proposed nuanced regulatory scheme should be overseen by a new national Agency, modeled on a blend of the Canadian Stem Cell Oversight Committee and Assisted Human Reproduction Canada.

With the use of genetic technology, researchers have the potential to inform medical diagnoses and treatment in actionable ways. Accurate variant interpretation is a necessary condition for the utility of genetic technology to unfold. This relies on the ability to access large genomic datasets so that comparisons can be made between variants of interest. This can only be successful if DNA and medical data are donated by large numbers of people to 'research', including clinical, non-profit and for-profit research initiatives, in order to be accessed by scientists and clinicians worldwide. The objective of the 'Your DNA, Your Say' global survey is to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate and concerns regarding the donation of one's personal data for use by others. Using a representative sample of 8967 English-speaking publics from the UK, the USA, Canada and Australia, we explore the characteristics of people who are unwilling (n = 1426) to donate their DNA and medical information, together with an exploration of their reasons. Understanding this perspective is important for making sense of the interaction between science and society. It also helps to focus engagement initiatives on the issues of concern to some publics., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

The announcement of the "CRISPR babies" reignited the debate surrounding the ethical, legal and social implications of germline gene editing. Despite having been conducted in the context of a clinical trial, Dr. Jiankui He's research appears to have violated both Chinese regulations and standard ethical procedures, as well as internationally accepted research and bioethical standards. It is within this context that our commentary surrounding the question of the enforceability of Chinese regulations in such a case. We argue that Chinese regulations do align with internationally accepted standards. Yet, the question remains, in what ways can China strengthen and update its regulatory framework to better address the benefits and challenges associated with emerging technologies, delineate clear enforcement mechanisms and specify criteria for ethics approval.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

The use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is increasing as the list of indications it can test for constantly expands. This raises new challenges for clinicians and prospective parents regarding possible uses and calls for guidance. Policy approaches towards PGD vary greatly worldwide. The 2004 Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act does not provide guidance, except for prohibiting non-medical sex selection. Criminal legislation is an unsuitable policy instrument to regulate human genetics and reproductive medicine. We call for professional societies to issue guidelines regarding the uses of PGD that would establish the standard of care and legal norms. Such guidelines should be based on a patient-centered approach and respect individual autonomy in reproductive decision-making. Canadian approaches to PGD should also consider issues related to equity of access. Moreover, since PGD often raises concerns about eugenic uses, guidelines should also consider its societal impact and its implementation should be accompanied by policies that maintain or increase social support for people with disabilities. Finally, public engagement could provide an evidence-base regarding Canadian societal values and concerns that should guide regulatory reform, for example, the regulation of non-medical sex selection through PGD., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the context of regenerative medicine and cellular therapies, the treatment under study often targets a less common disease or condition for which recruitment of a large number of research participants at any given site is challenging, if not impossible. One way to overcome this challenge is with a multi-centre clinical trial. This manuscript first aims to briefly outline the existing ethical, legal and social implications as well as the regulatory frameworks associated with multi-centre regenerative medicine clinical trials. Second, it considers the regulatory limitations and barriers surrounding the initiation of such trials in Canada, the USA and Europe. Third, it concludes with a set of recommendations for facilitating multi-centre clinical trials, at both national and international levels.

Stem cells may not systematically obey traditional Phase I-IV clinical translation models. In response, various actors have suggested that stem cell-based medical innovation models could catalyze translation instead. Accordingly, calls were made to adopt more permissive approaches to stem cell translation. Yet, the Phase I-IV paradigm remains the standard within the scientific community. This article seeks to advance the stalemated discussions by proposing an alternative model for consideration. In it, we argue that a stem cell-based learning health system may be able to reconcile these two models. Centered on the acceleration of evidence and knowledge flow, a stem cell-based learning health system could maximize patient retention and data follow-up, thereby promoting inclusive system learning and improvement.

Our international study, 'Your DNA, Your Say', uses film and an online cross-sectional survey to gather public attitudes toward the donation, access and sharing of DNA information. We describe the methodological approach used to create an engaging and bespoke survey, suitable for translation into many different languages. We address some of the particular challenges in designing a survey on the subject of genomics. In order to understand the significance of a genomic result, researchers and clinicians alike use external databases containing DNA and medical information from thousands of people. We ask how publics would like their 'anonymous' data to be used (or not to be used) and whether they are concerned by the potential risks of reidentification; the results will be used to inform policy.

We conducted a document analysis that explored publication ethics and authorship in the context of population biobanks from both a theoretical (e.g. normative documents) and practical (e.g. biobank-specific documentation) perspective. The aim was to provide an overview of the state of authorship attribution in population biobanks and attempt to fill the gap in discussions around the issue. Our findings demonstrate that the most common approach adopted in both the normative and biobank-specific documentation is acknowledgment. A co-authorship approach was second and highlighted concerns surrounding the fairness of imposing authorship of the scientific leadership as a condition to access data and biosamples, as well as the alignment with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' criteria such as what is deemed a significant contribution and how to ensure accountability. Based on these findings, we propose a three-prong approach, that may be cumulative, to address the issue of authorship attribution in the context of population biobanks, namely 1) the biobank should be appropriately acknowledged; 2) an invitation for co-authorship should be made based on the spirit of collaboration and provided a substantial contribution has been made; and 3) a citation/referencing option should be available.

Background: There is a growing support for the stance that patients and research participants should have better and easier access to their raw (uninterpreted) genomic sequence data in both clinical and research contexts., Main Body: We review legal frameworks and literature on the benefits, risks, and practical barriers of providing individuals access to their data. We also survey genomic sequencing initiatives that provide or plan to provide individual access. Many patients and research participants expect to be able to access their health and genomic data. Individuals have a legal right to access their genomic data in some countries and contexts. Moreover, increasing numbers of participatory research projects, direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, and now major national sequencing initiatives grant individuals access to their genomic sequence data upon request., Conclusion: Drawing on current practice and regulatory analysis, we outline legal, ethical, and practical guidance for genomic sequencing initiatives seeking to offer interested patients and participants access to their raw genomic data.

Research involving human embryos and reproductive materials, including certain forms of stem cell and genetic research, is a fast-moving area of science with demonstrated clinical relevance. Canada's current governance framework for this field of research urgently requires review and reconsideration in view of emerging applications. Based on a workshop involving ethics, legal, policy, scientific and clinical experts, we present a series of recommendations with the goal of informing and supporting health policy and decision-making regarding the governance of the field. With a pragmatic and principled governance approach, Canada can continue its global leadership in this field, as well as advance the long-term health and well-being of Canadians., (Copyright © 2018 Longwoods Publishing.)

Genome editing using clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated proteins offers the potential to facilitate safe and effective treatment of genetic diseases refractory to other types of intervention. Here, we identify some of the major challenges for clinicians, regulators, and human research ethics committees in the clinical translation of CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy.

Regenerative medicine has attracted the interest of scientists, physicians, and patient communities, and as well as policy-makers and the broader public given related ethical, legal, and social implications. Here we examine past initiatives in the ethical, legal and social implications arena in regenerative medicine, and offer our views on actionable priorities for the future in six key areas: capacity building, policy, engagement with industry, resaerch ethics, communication, and community building., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Recent gene editing experiments carried out in human embryos have raised the question of whether interventions like the introduction of a CCR5-Δ32 deletion, which could provide heritable resistance to HIV infection, ought to be considered enhancements. Many authors have used the term "enhancement" in different ways, some based on patients' biomedical outcomes and others on their social context. These classifications are often considered overly imprecise. Nevertheless, the concept of "enhancement" could affect the ways in which these applications are regulated in different jurisdictions, the availability of coverage by insurers or public health care, and the force of public opinion in shaping future policy on gene editing. In order to ethically situate resistance to communicable disease with reference to other techniques, this article provides an overview of its similarities and differences with disease gene therapy in embryos, gene therapy in consenting adults, and vaccination. In discussing key ethical features of CCR5-Δ32 deletion (including its frequency in various populations, biological mechanism, benefits for individuals, and use in previous clinical trials) we offer some potential guideposts for the continuing discussion on how to classify "enhancements" in the age of CRISPR gene editing.

Purpose: To explore parental perceptions and experiences regarding the return of genomic incidental research findings in children with rare diseases., Methods: Parents of children affected by various rare diseases were invited to participate in focus groups or individual telephone interviews in Montreal and Ottawa. Fifteen participants were interviewed and transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis., Results: Four emergent themes underscored parental enthusiasm for receiving incidental findings concerning their child's health: (1) right to information; (2) perceived benefits and risks; (3) communication practicalities: who, when, and how; and (4) service needs to promote the communication of incidental findings. Parents believed they should be made aware of all results pertaining to their child's health status, and that they are responsible for transmitting this information to their child, irrespective of disease severity. Despite potential negative consequences, respondents generally perceived a favourable risk-benefit ratio in receiving all incidental findings., Conclusions: Understanding how parents assess the risks and benefits of returning incidental findings is essential to genomic research applications in paediatric medicine. The authors believe the study findings will contribute to establishing future best practices, although further research is needed to evaluate the impact of parental decisions on themselves and their child., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

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.