Literature DB >> 31527856

Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice.

Lisa M Ballard1, Rachel H Horton2, Angela Fenwick2, Anneke M Lucassen2.   

Abstract

Technological advances have seen the offer of genome sequencing becoming part of mainstream medical practice. Research has elicited patient and health professional views on the ethical issues genome sequencing raises, however, we know little about the general public's views. These views offer an insight into people's faith in such technologies, informing discussion regarding the approach to consent in clinic. We aimed to garner public views regarding genome sequencing, incidental findings (IFs), and sharing genetic information with relatives. Participants (n = 1954) from the British general public completed a survey, distributed via email. Overall, the public had a positive view of genomic sequencing, choosing 'informative' as the most popular word (52%) and 'family legacy' as the most popular analogy (33%) representing genomic sequencing for them. Fifty-three percent  agree that their relative had the right to be told about genetic information relevant to them. Fifty-four percent would expect to be told about IFs whether they had asked for them or not. Clinical practice needs to acknowledge these perspectives and expectations in order to facilitate meaningful discussion during the consent process for genomic tests. We suggest that: (a) optimistic perspectives on the usefulness of genomic tests need to be tempered by discussion in clinic about the likelihood that genomic results might be uninformative, uncertain or unexpected; (b) discussions regarding the familial nature of results are needed before testing: the majority of patients will welcome this and any concerns can be explored further; and (c) a wider discussion is required regarding the consent approach for genomic testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31527856      PMCID: PMC6974627          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0504-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  23 in total

Review 1.  Genetic information: a joint account?

Authors:  Michael Parker; Anneke M Lucassen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-17

2.  Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study.

Authors:  Flavia M Facio; Haley Eidem; Tyler Fisher; Stephanie Brooks; Amy Linn; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Great expectations: patient perspectives and anticipated utility of non-diagnostic genomic-sequencing results.

Authors:  Robyn Hylind; Maureen Smith; Laura Rasmussen-Torvik; Sharon Aufox
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-06-27

Review 4.  Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice.

Authors:  Shiri Shkedi-Rafid; Sandi Dheensa; Gillian Crawford; Angela Fenwick; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 5.  Genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses.

Authors:  Charles A Steward; Alasdair P J Parker; Berge A Minassian; Sanjay M Sisodiya; Adam Frankish; Jennifer Harrow
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 11.117

6.  Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.

Authors:  Manuel Schaper; Silke Schicktanz
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 7.  Recent developments in genetic/genomic medicine.

Authors:  Rachel H Horton; Anneke M Lucassen
Journal:  Clin Sci (Lond)       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 6.124

8.  'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine.

Authors:  Sandi Dheensa; Angela Fenwick; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 9.  Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Loredana Covolo; Sara Rubinelli; Elisabetta Ceretti; Umberto Gelatti
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Assessing the Pathogenicity, Penetrance, and Expressivity of Putative Disease-Causing Variants in a Population Setting.

Authors:  Caroline F Wright; Ben West; Marcus Tuke; Samuel E Jones; Kashyap Patel; Thomas W Laver; Robin N Beaumont; Jessica Tyrrell; Andrew R Wood; Timothy M Frayling; Andrew T Hattersley; Michael N Weedon
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 11.025

View more
  3 in total

1.  "If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens.

Authors:  Deborah R Gordon; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  New Genet Soc       Date:  2021-12-13

Review 2.  How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review.

Authors:  Isabella A Sherburn; Keri Finlay; Stephanie Best
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 5.351

3.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Rachel Horton; Gillian Crawford; Lindsey Freeman; Angela Fenwick; Caroline F Wright; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-10-16
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.