Literature DB >> 28501562

A 'joint venture' model of recontacting in clinical genomics: challenges for responsible implementation.

Sandi Dheensa1, Daniele Carrieri2, Susan Kelly2, Angus Clarke3, Shane Doheny3, Peter Turnpenny4, Anneke Lucassen5.   

Abstract

Advances in genomics often lead healthcare professionals (HCPs) to learn new information, e.g., about reinterpreted variants that could have clinical significance for patients seen previously. A question arises of whether HCPs should recontact these former patients. We present some findings interrogating the views of patients (or parents of patients) with a rare or undiagnosed condition about how such recontacting might be organised ethically and practically. Forty-one interviews were analysed thematically. Participants suggested a 'joint venture' model in which efforts to recontact are shared with HCPs. Some proposed an ICT-approach involving an electronic health record that automatically alerts them to potentially relevant updates. The need for rigorous privacy controls and transparency about who could access their data was emphasised. Importantly, these findings highlight that the lack of clarity about recontacting is a symptom of a wider problem: the lack of necessary infrastructure to pool genomic data responsibly, to aggregate it with other health data, and to enable patients/parents to receive updates. We hope that our findings will instigate a debate about the way responsibilities for recontacting under any joint venture model could be allocated, as well as the limitations and normative implications of using ICT as a solution to this intractable problem. As a first step to delineating responsibilities in the clinical setting, we suggest HCPs should routinely discuss recontacting with patients/parents, including the new information that should trigger a HCP to initiate recontact, as part of the consent process for genetic testing.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical genetics; Data-sharing; Ethics; Genomics; Patients; Recontacting

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28501562     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2017.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Med Genet        ISSN: 1769-7212            Impact factor:   2.708


  11 in total

1.  Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Emilia Niemiec; Heidi Carmen Howard; Pascal Borry
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  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

3.  Opinions and experiences of recontacting patients: a survey of Australasian genetic health professionals.

Authors:  Bhavya Bhupen Vora; Helen Mountain; Cassandra Nichols; Lyn Schofield
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-01-11

4.  The environmental sustainability of data-driven health research: A scoping review.

Authors:  Gabrielle Samuel; A M Lucassen
Journal:  Digit Health       Date:  2022-07-05

5.  Views of rare disease participants in a UK whole-genome sequencing study towards secondary findings: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Michael P Mackley; Edward Blair; Michael Parker; Jenny C Taylor; Hugh Watkins; Elizabeth Ormondroyd
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.

Authors:  Daniele Carrieri; Heidi C Howard; Caroline Benjamin; Angus J Clarke; Sandi Dheensa; Shane Doheny; Naomi Hawkins; Tanya F Halbersma-Konings; Leigh Jackson; Hülya Kayserili; Susan E Kelly; Anneke M Lucassen; Álvaro Mendes; Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag; Vigdís Stefánsdóttir; Peter D Turnpenny; Carla G van El; Irene M van Langen; Martina C Cornel; Francesca Forzano
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Reinterpretation, reclassification, and its downstream effects: challenges for clinical laboratory geneticists.

Authors:  Julia El Mecky; Lennart Johansson; Mirjam Plantinga; Angela Fenwick; Anneke Lucassen; Trijnie Dijkhuizen; Annemieke van der Hout; Kate Lyle; Irene van Langen
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 3.063

8.  A dynamic systems view of clinical genomics: a rich picture of the landscape in Australia using a complexity science lens.

Authors:  Janet C Long; Hossai Gul; Elise McPherson; Stephanie Best; Hanna Augustsson; Kate Churruca; Louise A Ellis; Jeffrey Braithwaite
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2021-02-27       Impact factor: 3.063

9.  Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chloe Mighton; Salma Shickh; Elizabeth Uleryk; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Yvonne Bombard
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Recontacting in clinical practice: the views and expectations of patients in the United Kingdom.

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:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.