Literature DB >> 26740237

Global trends on fears and concerns of genetic discrimination: a systematic literature review.

Annet Wauters1, Ine Van Hoyweghen1.   

Abstract

Since the 1990s, developments in the field of genetics have led to many questions on the use and possible misuse of genetic information. 'Genetic discrimination' has been defined as the differential treatment of asymptomatic individuals or their relatives on the basis of their real or assumed genetic characteristics. Despite the public policy attention around genetic discrimination, there is currently still much confusion surrounding this phenomenon. On the one hand, there is little evidence of the occurrence of genetic discrimination. On the other hand, it appears that people remain concerned about this theme, and this fear influences their health and life choices. This article makes use of a systematic literature review to investigate what is already known about the nature, extent and background of these fears and concerns. The 42 included studies have found considerable levels of concerns about genetic discrimination. Concerns dominate in insurance contexts and within personal interactions. The extent of concerns appears to vary depending on the type of genetic illness. Furthermore, installed laws prohibiting genetic discrimination do not seem to alleviate existing fears. This raises important questions as to the origins of these fears. Based on the findings, recommendations for future research are made. First, research on the background of fears is needed. Second, future research needs to assess more fully all different forms (for example, direct and indirect) of genetic discrimination. Thirdly, it has to be studied whether genetic discrimination is a form of discrimination that is distinguishable from discrimination based on an illness or disability. Finally, a last element that should be addressed in future research is the most recent developments in research on genomics, such as next-generation sequencing or genome-wide association studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26740237     DOI: 10.1038/jhg.2015.151

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1434-5161            Impact factor:   3.172


  52 in total

1.  Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  K Armstrong; K Calzone; J Stopfer; G Fitzgerald; J Coyne; B Weber
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Genetic discrimination and the law.

Authors:  M R Natowicz; J K Alper; J S Alper
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Unravelling fears of genetic discrimination: an exploratory study of Dutch HCM families in an era of genetic non-discrimination acts.

Authors:  Els Geelen; Klasien Horstman; Carlo L M Marcelis; Pieter A Doevendans; Ine Van Hoyweghen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  Ethical, social and legal implications of genetic testing in liver disease.

Authors:  Dirk J van Leeuwen; James L Bernat
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 17.425

5.  Perceptions of Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients on genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Authors:  K A Phillips; E Warner; W S Meschino; J Hunter; M Abdolell; G Glendon; I L Andrulis; P J Goodwin
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.438

6.  A descriptive study of BRCA1 testing and reactions to disclosure of test results.

Authors:  H T Lynch; S J Lemon; C Durham; S T Tinley; C Connolly; J F Lynch; J Surdam; E Orinion; S Slominski-Caster; P Watson; C Lerman; P Tonin; G Lenoir; O Serova; S Narod
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1997-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Perception, experience, and response to genetic discrimination in Huntington disease: the international RESPOND-HD study.

Authors:  Cheryl Erwin; Janet K Williams; Andrew R Juhl; Michelle Mengeling; James A Mills; Yvonne Bombard; Michael R Hayden; Kimberly Quaid; Ira Shoulson; Sandra Taylor; Jane S Paulsen
Journal:  Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.568

8.  Engagement with genetic discrimination: concerns and experiences in the context of Huntington disease.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Elizabeth Penziner; Oksana Suchowersky; Mark Guttman; Jane S Paulsen; Joan L Bottorff; Michael R Hayden
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Human Genome Project.

Authors:  M P Sawicki; G Samara; M Hurwitz; E Passaro
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  Spinocerebellar ataxia: patient and health professional perspectives on whether and how patents affect access to clinical genetic testing.

Authors:  Ashton Powell; Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Robert Cook-Deegan
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  31 in total

1.  Comparative perspectives: regulating insurer use of genetic information.

Authors:  Anya E R Prince
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 2.512

3.  A survey of U. S. state insurance commissioners concerning genetic testing and life insurance: Redux at 27.

Authors:  Dexter R Golinghorst; Anya E R Prince
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  Evolving health care through personal genomics.

Authors:  Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 5.  Opportunities, resources, and techniques for implementing genomics in clinical care.

Authors:  Teri A Manolio; Robb Rowley; Marc S Williams; Dan Roden; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Carol Bult; Rex L Chisholm; Patricia A Deverka; Howard L McLeod; George A Mensah; Mary V Relling; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Cecelia Tamburro; Eric D Green
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice.

Authors:  Kerry A Ryan; Raymond G De Vries; Wendy R Uhlmann; J Scott Roberts; Michele C Gornick
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Use of genetic risks in pediatric organ transplantation listing decisions: A national survey.

Authors:  Madeline Graf; Danton Char; Andrea Hanson-Kahn; David Magnus
Journal:  Pediatr Transplant       Date:  2019-04-23

8.  Traceback: A Proposed Framework to Increase Identification and Genetic Counseling of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Through Family-Based Outreach.

Authors:  Goli Samimi; Marcus Q Bernardini; Lawrence C Brody; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Ian G Campbell; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Fergus J Couch; Michael Dean; Joanne A de Hullu; Susan M Domchek; Ronny Drapkin; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Michael Friedlander; Mia M Gaudet; Marline G Harmsen; Karen Hurley; Paul A James; Janice S Kwon; Felicitas Lacbawan; Stephanie Lheureux; Phuong L Mai; Leah E Mechanic; Lori M Minasian; Evan R Myers; Mark E Robson; Susan J Ramus; Lisa F Rezende; Patricia A Shaw; Thomas P Slavin; Elizabeth M Swisher; Masataka Takenaka; David D Bowtell; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Public Views on Genetics and Genetic Testing: A Survey of the General Public in Belgium.

Authors:  Davit Chokoshvili; Carmen Belmans; Roxanne Poncelet; Sofie Sanders; Deborah Vaes; Danya Vears; Sandra Janssens; Isabelle Huys; Pascal Borry
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-03

Review 10.  Cases in Precision Medicine: Concerns About Privacy and Discrimination After Genomic Sequencing.

Authors:  Deborah Stiles; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.