Literature DB >> 16371501

Letting the family know: balancing ethics and effectiveness when notifying relatives about genetic testing for a familial disorder.

G K Suthers1, J Armstrong, J McCormack, D Trott.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To increase the awareness among at risk relatives of the availability of genetic testing for a familial disorder while respecting their autonomy and privacy.
METHODS: This was a comparison of preintervention and postintervention cohorts of families carried out in a state wide clinical service providing genetic counselling and testing for people at risk of familial adult onset cancer. Unaffected relatives who were not clients of the service in 74 kindreds with familial mutations causing familial breast and ovarian cancer, hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer, or Cowden syndrome were included in the study. In the baseline cohort (41 kindreds), family members who were clients of the clinical service and had been shown to be carriers of mutations were asked to advise relatives that genetic testing was available. In the intervention cohort (33 kindreds), the clinical service obtained consent to advise at risk relatives by letter that genetic testing was available. The main outcome measures were: (a) proportion of unaffected first and second degree relatives of the proband in each family whose genetic status was clarified within 2 years of the mutation being identified in the family, and (b) concerns regarding privacy and autonomy voiced by relatives receiving these letters.
RESULTS: In the baseline cohort, the average proportion of relatives in each family whose genetic status was clarified was 23%. In the intervention cohort, the average proportion of relatives in each family whose genetic status was clarified was 40% (p = 0.001). None of the relatives in the intervention cohort complained of a breach of privacy or autonomy.
CONCLUSION: Clinical services can take an effective and proactive approach to notifying relatives who are not their clients of the availability of genetic testing without compromising principles of privacy and autonomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16371501      PMCID: PMC2564590          DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2005.039172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Genet        ISSN: 0022-2593            Impact factor:   6.318


  24 in total

1.  Patients' rights or family responsibilities? Two approaches to genetic testing.

Authors:  Loane Skene
Journal:  Med Law Rev       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.267

2.  Comparison of genetic services with and without genetic registers: access and attitudes to genetic counselling services among relatives of genetic clinic patients.

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

3.  Predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: uptake and long-term satisfaction.

Authors:  K Aktan-Collan; J P Mecklin; H Järvinen; M Nyström-Lahti; P Peltomäki; I Söderling; A Uutela; A de la Chapelle; H Kääriäinen
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2000-01-20       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  All in the family: evaluation of the process and content of sisters' communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results.

Authors:  Chanita Hughes; Caryn Lerman; Marc Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Lari Wenzel; Steven Narod; Camille Corio; Kenneth P Tercyak; Danielle Hanna; Claudine Isaacs; David Main
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2002-01-15

5.  Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients.

Authors:  Erna Claes; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Andrea Boogaerts; Marleen Decruyenaere; Lieve Denayer; Eric Legius
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2003-01-01       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Parental communication of BRCA1/2 genetic test results to children.

Authors:  K P Tercyak; C Hughes; D Main; C Snyder; J F Lynch; H T Lynch; C Lerman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2001-03

7.  Disclosure of familial genetic information: perceptions of the duty to inform.

Authors:  L S Lehmann; J C Weeks; N Klar; L Biener; J E Garber
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 4.965

8.  Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 results to at-risk relatives: a cancer risk assessment program's experience.

Authors:  Josephine Wagner Costalas; Mark Itzen; John Malick; James S Babb; Betsy Bove; Andrew K Godwin; Mary B Daly
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 3.908

9.  Medical Geneticists' duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease.

Authors:  Marni J Falk; R Beth Dugan; Mary Ann O'Riordan; Anne L Matthews; Nathaniel H Robin
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2003-07-30       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  Predictive testing for Huntington disease: nonparticipants compared with participants in the Dutch program.

Authors:  I M van der Steenstraten; A Tibben; R A Roos; J J van de Kamp; M F Niermeijer
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 11.025

View more
  67 in total

Review 1.  How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence.

Authors:  Álvaro Mendes; Milena Paneque; Liliana Sousa; Angus Clarke; Jorge Sequeiros
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  An exploration of the communication preferences regarding genetic testing in individuals from families with identified breast/ovarian cancer mutations.

Authors:  Paboda Ratnayake; Claire E Wakefield; Bettina Meiser; Graeme Suthers; Melanie A Price; Jessica Duffy; Kathy Tucker
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Should families own genetic information? Yes.

Authors:  Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-07-07

Review 4.  Factors influencing intrafamilial communication of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic information.

Authors:  Gillian Nycum; Denise Avard; Bartha M Knoppers
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Unsolicited information letters to increase awareness of Lynch syndrome and familial colorectal cancer: reactions and attitudes.

Authors:  Helle Vendel Petersen; Birgitte Lidegaard Frederiksen; Charlotte Kvist Lautrup; Lars Joachim Lindberg; Steen Ladelund; Mef Nilbert
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Unpacking the blockers: understanding perceptions and social constraints of health communication in hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) susceptibility families.

Authors:  June A Peters; Regina Kenen; Lindsey M Hoskins; Laura M Koehly; Barry Graubard; Jennifer T Loud; Mark H Greene
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-05-06       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Supporting disclosure of genetic information to family members: professional practice and timelines in cancer genetics.

Authors:  Benjamin Derbez; Antoine de Pauw; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Sandrine de Montgolfier
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice.

Authors:  Fred H Menko; Jacqueline A Ter Stege; Lizet E van der Kolk; Kiki N Jeanson; Winnie Schats; Daoud Ait Moha; Eveline M A Bleiker
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Ethics: Genetic testing for MEN1--whose responsibility?

Authors:  Cornelis J M Lips; Jo W M Höppener
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 43.330

10.  Evaluating the utilization of educational materials in communicating about Lynch syndrome to at-risk relatives.

Authors:  Kristen Dilzell; Kerry Kingham; Kelly Ormond; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.