Literature DB >> 19346047

Distinguishing research from clinical care in cancer genetics: theoretical justifications and practical strategies.

Nina Hallowell1, Sarah Cooke, Gill Crawford, Anneke Lucassen, Michael Parker.   

Abstract

The relationship between clinical research and clinical care is often perceived as unclear, particularly in highly technological subspecialties. This ambiguity is illustrated in cancer genetics where research protocols are frequently used to provide access to procedures that may be offered as a clinical service in other specialties. The project on which this paper is based investigated lay and expert perceptions of the activities which take place within the cancer genetics clinic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 individuals who are involved in cancer genetics research in the UK, the majority (18 clinical geneticists, 10 genetic counsellors/nurse specialists) of whom also provide a clinical service. Interviewees emphasised the need to differentiate research from clinical care for service users, and provided regulatory, ethical, economic and translational justifications for distinguishing these activities. A number of strategies for differentiating research from clinical care were described by those who work as healthcare professionals, which involved deliberately displacing these activities in time and space. It is argued that by distinguishing research from clinical care clinical researchers are engaging in a form of boundary work which enables them to manage what they experience as a conflict of interest generated by the different roles they occupy within the cancer genetics clinic. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for the process of informed consent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19346047     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  15 in total

1.  Does a duty of disclosure foster special treatment of genetic research participants?

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; Fiona A Miller; Jessica P Bytautas; Li Li
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Translating genomics: cancer genetics, public health and the making of the (de)molecularised body in Cuba and Brazil.

Authors:  Sahra Gibbon
Journal:  Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

3.  The changing landscape of genetic testing and its impact on clinical and laboratory services and research in Europe.

Authors:  Ros Hastings; Guido de Wert; Brian Fowler; Michael Krawczak; Eric Vermeulen; Egbert Bakker; Pascal Borry; Wybo Dondorp; Niels Nijsingh; David Barton; Jörg Schmidtke; Carla G van El; Joris Vermeesch; Yrrah Stol; Heidi Carmen Howard; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care.

Authors:  Fiona A Miller; Robin Z Hayeems; Jessica P Bytautas; Philippe L Bedard; Scott Ernst; Hal Hirte; Sebastien Hotte; Amit Oza; Albiruni Razak; Stephen Welch; Eric Winquist; Janet Dancey; Lillian L Siu
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Revisiting Expectations in an Era of Precision Oncology.

Authors:  Emily J Marchiano; Andrew C Birkeland; Paul L Swiecicki; Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Andrew G Shuman
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-11-20

6.  Experiences with community engagement and informed consent in a genetic cohort study of severe childhood diseases in Kenya.

Authors:  Vicki M Marsh; Dorcas M Kamuya; Albert M Mlamba; Thomas N Williams; Sassy S Molyneux
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Consenting futures: professional views on social, clinical and ethical aspects of information feedback to embryo donors in human embryonic stem cell research.

Authors:  Kathryn Ehrich; Clare Williams; Bobbie Farsides
Journal:  Clin Ethics       Date:  2010-06

8.  Accessing health services through the back door: a qualitative interview study investigating reasons why people participate in health research in Canada.

Authors:  Anne Townsend; Susan M Cox
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-10-12       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  Configuring the patient as clinical research subject in the UK national health service.

Authors:  Mary Adams; Christopher McKevitt
Journal:  Anthropol Med       Date:  2015-03-13

10.  Rethinking the therapeutic misconception: social justice, patient advocacy, and cancer clinical trial recruitment in the US safety net.

Authors:  Nancy J Burke
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.