Literature DB >> 10053020

The duty to recontact: attitudes of genetics service providers.

J L Fitzpatrick1, C Hahn, T Costa, M J Huggins.   

Abstract

The term "duty to recontact" refers to the possible ethical and/or legal obligation of genetics service providers (GSPs) to recontact former patients about advances in research that might be relevant to them. Although currently this practice is not part of standard care, some argue that such an obligation may be established in the future. Little information is available, however, on the implications of this requirement, from the point of view of GSPs. To explore the opinions of genetics professionals on this issue, we sent a self-administered questionnaire to 1,000 randomly selected U.S. and Canadian members of the American Society of Human Genetics. We received 252 completed questionnaires. The major categories of respondents were physician geneticist (41%), Ph.D. geneticist (30%), and genetic counselor (18%); 72% of the total stated that they see patients. Respondents indicated that responsibility for staying in contact should be shared between health professionals and patients. Respondents were divided about whether recontacting patients should be the standard of care: 46% answered yes, 43% answered no, and 11% did not know. Those answering yes included 44% of physician geneticists, 53% of Ph.D. geneticists, and 31% of genetic counselors; answers were statistically independent of position or country of practice but were dependent on whether the respondent sees patients (43% answered yes) or not (54% answered yes). There also was a lack of consensus about the possible benefits and burdens of recontacting patients and about various alternative methods of informing patients about research advances. Analysis of qualitative data suggested that most respondents consider recontacting patients an ethically desirable, but not feasible, goal. Points to consider in the future development of guidelines for practice are presented.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10053020      PMCID: PMC1377803          DOI: 10.1086/302293

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  11 in total

1.  Staying informed and recontacting patients about research advances: a study of patient attitudes.

Authors:  M Huggins; C Hahn; T Costa
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Practice guidelines: to be or not to be.

Authors:  R H Brook
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-10-12       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  The genetic testing of children for cancer susceptibility: ethical, legal, and social issues.

Authors:  A F Patenaude
Journal:  Behav Sci Law       Date:  1996

4.  Ethical aspects of medical genetics. A proposal for guidelines in genetic counseling, prenatal diagnosis and screening.

Authors:  J C Fletcher; K Berg; K E Tranøy
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  1985-02       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations.

Authors:  J M Grimshaw; I T Russell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-11-27       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Duty to recall.

Authors:  D Berg; H L Hirsh
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 0.954

7.  Risk reversals in predictive testing for Huntington disease.

Authors:  E Almqvist; S Adam; M Bloch; A Fuller; P Welch; D Eisenberg; D Whelan; D Macgregor; W Meschino; M R Hayden
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Whose DNA is it anyway? Relationships between families and researchers.

Authors:  V L Hannig; E W Clayton; K M Edwards
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1993-08-15

9.  Duty to disclose in medical genetics: a legal perspective.

Authors:  M Z Pelias
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1991-06-01

10.  Legal aspects of genetic information.

Authors:  L B Andrews
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb
View more
  17 in total

1.  The duty to recontact: benefit and harm.

Authors:  N F Sharpe
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Recontacting in clinical genetics and genomic medicine? We need to talk about it.

Authors:  Daniele Carrieri; Sandi Dheensa; Shane Doheny; Angus J Clarke; Peter D Turnpenny; Anneke M Lucassen; Susan E Kelly
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  The 'thousand-dollar genome': an ethical exploration.

Authors:  Wybo J Dondorp; Guido M W R de Wert
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Comparison of genetic services with and without genetic registers: knowledge, adjustment, and attitudes about genetic counselling among probands referred to three genetic clinics.

Authors:  C Wright; L Kerzin-Storrar; P R Williamson; A Fryer; A Njindou; O Quarrell; D Donnai; D Craufurd
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.318

5.  Recontacting or not recontacting? A survey of current practices in clinical genetics centres in Europe.

Authors:  Fabio Sirchia; Daniele Carrieri; Sandi Dheensa; Caroline Benjamin; Hülya Kayserili; Christophe Cordier; Carla G van El; Peter D Turnpenny; Bela Melegh; Álvaro Mendes; Tanya F Halbersma-Konings; Irene M van Langen; Anneke M Lucassen; Angus J Clarke; Francesca Forzano; Susan E Kelly
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Patient preferences regarding recontact by cancer genetics clinicians.

Authors:  Constance A Griffin; Jennifer E Axilbund; Ann Marie Codori; Ginny Deise; Betty May; Cheryl Pendergrass; Miriam Tillery; Jill D Trimbath; Francis M Giardiello
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2007-02-17       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 8.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  Roles and responsibilities of a medical geneticist.

Authors:  Wendy S Rubinstein
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2007-07-12       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Impact of a genetic diagnosis of a mitochondrial disorder 5-17 years after the death of an affected child.

Authors:  A C Sexton; M Sahhar; D R Thorburn; S A Metcalfe
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.