RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: There have been multiple calls for explicit integration of ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) in health technology assessment (HTA) and addressing ELSI has been highlighted as key in optimizing benefits in the Omics/Personalized Medicine field. This study examines HTAs of an early clinical example of Personalized Medicine (gene expression profile tests [GEP] for breast cancer prognosis) aiming to: (i) identify ELSI; (ii) assess whether ELSIs are implicitly or explicitly addressed; and (iii) report methodology used for ELSI integration. METHODS: A systematic search for HTAs (January 2004 to September 2012), followed by descriptive and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen HTAs for GEP were retrieved. Only three (18%) explicitly presented ELSI, and only one reported methodology. However, all of the HTAs included implicit ELSI. Eight themes of implicit and explicit ELSI were identified. "Classical" ELSI including privacy, informed consent, and concerns about limited patient/clinician genetic literacy were always presented explicitly. Some ELSI, including the need to understand how individual patients' risk tolerances affect clinical decision-making after reception of GEP results, were presented both explicitly and implicitly in HTAs. Others, such as concern about evidentiary deficiencies for clinical utility of GEP tests, occurred only implicitly. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a wide variety of important ELSI raised, these were rarely explicitly addressed in HTAs. Explicit treatment would increase their accessibility to decision-makers, and may augment HTA efficiency maximizing their utility. This is particularly important where complex Personalized Medicine applications are rapidly expanding choices for patients, clinicians and healthcare systems.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/genética , Perfilación de la Expresión Génica/ética , Medicina de Precisión/ética , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica/ética , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Toma de Decisiones , HumanosRESUMEN
Tailoring medical treatment to individual patients requires a strong foundation in research to provide the data necessary to understand the relationship between the disease, the patient, and the type of treatment advocated for. Non-therapeutic oncology clinical trials studying therapeutic resistance require the participation of patients, yet only a small percentage enroll. Treating physicians are often relied on to recruit patients, but they have a number of ethical obligations that might be perceived as barriers to recruiting. Concepts such as voluntariness of consent and conflicts of interest can have an impact on whether physicians will discuss clinical trials with their patients and how patients perceive the information. However, these ethical obligations should not be prohibitive to physician recruitment of patients - precautions can be taken to ensure that patients' consent to research participation is fully voluntary and devoid of conflict, such as the use of other members of the research team than the treating physician to discuss the trial and obtain consent, and better communication between researchers, clinicians, and patients. These can ensure that research benefits are maximized for the good of patients and society.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Obtaining a research participant's voluntary and informed consent is the bedrock of sound ethics practice. Greater inclusion of children in research has led to questions about how paediatric consent operates in practice to accord with current and emerging legal and socio-ethical issues, norms, and requirements. METHODS: Employing a qualitative thematic content analysis, we examined paediatric consent forms from major academic centres and public organisations across Canada dated from 2008-2011, which were purposively selected to reflect different types of research ethics boards, participants, and studies. The studies included biobanking, longitudinal studies, and gene-environment studies. Our purpose was to explore the following six emerging issues: (1) whether the scope of parental consent allows for a child's assent, dissent, or future consent; (2) whether the concepts of risk and benefit incorporate the child's psychological and social perspective; (3) whether a child's ability to withdraw is respected and to what extent withdrawal is permitted; (4) whether the return of research results includes individual results and/or incidental findings and the processes involved therein; (5) whether privacy and confidentiality concerns adequately address the child's perspective and whether standard data and/or sample identifiability nomenclature is used; and (6) whether retention of and access to paediatric biological samples and associated medical data are addressed. RESULTS: The review suggests gaps and variability in the consent forms with respect to addressing each of the six issues. Many forms did not discuss the possibility of returning research results, be they individual or general/aggregate results. Forms were also divided in terms of the scope of parental consent (specific versus broad), and none discussed a process for resolving disputes that can arise when either the parents or the child wishes to withdraw from the study. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis provides valuable insight and evidence into how consent forms address current ethical issues. While we do not thoroughly explore the contexts and reasons behind consent form gaps and variability, we do advocate and formulate the development of best practices for drafting paediatric health research consent forms. This can greatly ameliorate current gaps and facilitate harmonised and yet contextualised approaches to paediatric health research ethics.
Asunto(s)
Confidencialidad , Formularios de Consentimiento/ética , Investigación sobre Servicios de Salud/ética , Consentimiento Paterno/ética , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Sujetos de Investigación , Adolescente , Discusiones Bioéticas , Bancos de Muestras Biológicas/ética , Canadá , Niño , Preescolar , Factores de Confusión Epidemiológicos , Formularios de Consentimiento/normas , Ética en Investigación , Investigación sobre Servicios de Salud/normas , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Pediatría , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normasRESUMEN
While the importance of intrafamilial communication of hereditary cancer risk has been acknowledged, the factors that promote and act as barriers to patients disclosing their information to their families are complex and emerging. This raises the question: How are patients guided in practice to contemplate intrafamilial communication? Focusing on breast cancer, we conducted an exploratory study examining current resources supporting patients and health-care professionals, and isolated the messages surrounding intrafamilial communication of cancer risk. We find the duty for health-care professionals to counsel patients regarding intrafamilial communication is acknowledged to varying degrees by multiple actors in the cancer care delivery landscape, including health-care professional associations, health service organizations, and patient groups. A range of medical, psychosocial, and other factors underlying intrafamilial communication are acknowledged in messages to patients. Patients, however, are often referred to a single group of health-care professionals to discuss their diverse and complex needs. At the same time, messages aimed at patients appear to place the emphasis on barriers that could exist for patients contemplating intrafamilial communication, while highlighting the benefits families derive from such communication. Taken together, this points to a lack of coherence within materials directed to patients and suggests the need to do coordinated research among stakeholders to address two related issues: (1) determining who are the actors best positioned to send messages surrounding intrafamilial communication to patients and (2) addressing the content of messages conveyed in patient materials.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/genética , Relaciones Familiares , Revelación de la Verdad , Neoplasias de la Mama/psicología , Salud de la Familia , Femenino , Asesoramiento Genético , Pruebas Genéticas , Humanos , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
The primary goal of breast and ovarian cancer screening is to minimize the cases of advanced disease and therefore its mortality rate. For hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, one method to reach this goal is to disseminate genetic risk information among family members. However, experience tells us that this information does not always reach family members in a timely manner, if at all. There are many moving parts to a decision to disclose genetic risk information within a family, and the lack of detail and cohesion in current guidelines do a disservice to hereditary breast cancer prevention. Utilizing legal, medical, and policy databases for literature, case law and policy documents relating to communication of genetic test results within families, as well as a consultative process with representative stakeholders, a points to consider has been developed to address a number of issues that might impact the ability and willingness of patients to inform family members of genetic risk. These include: what is "genetic information"; who is the "family"; why should patients inform their family members; and how should health professionals be involved in this process? This represents only an initial step towards fostering better communication within families. Additional research is needed to determine the best methods for encouraging this communication and motivations for disclosing or not and to promote the development of a solution, considering the complexity of human relationships and the probabilistic nature of genetic information.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Non-therapeutic trials in which terminally ill cancer patients are asked to undergo procedures such as biopsies or venipunctures for research purposes, have become increasingly important to learn more about how cancer cells work and to realize the full potential of clinical research. Considering that implementing non-therapeutic studies is not likely to result in direct benefits for the patient, some authors are concerned that involving patients in such research may be exploitive of vulnerable patients and should not occur at all, or should be greatly restricted, while some proponents doubt whether such restrictions are appropriate. Our objective was to explore clinician-researcher attitudes and concerns when recruiting patients who are in advanced stages of cancer into non-therapeutic research. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative exploratory study by carrying out open-ended interviews with health professionals, including physicians, research nurses, and study coordinators. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Analysis was carried out using grounded theory. RESULTS: The analysis of the interviews unveiled three prominent themes: 1) ethical considerations; 2) patient-centered issues; 3) health professional issues. Respondents identified ethical issues surrounding autonomy, respect for persons, beneficence, non-maleficence, discrimination, and confidentiality; bringing to light that patients contribute to science because of a sense of altruism and that they want reassurance before consenting. Several patient-centered and health professional issues are having an impact on the recruitment of patients for non-therapeutic research. Facilitators were most commonly associated with patient-centered issues enhancing communication, whereas barriers in non-therapeutic research were most often professionally based, including the doctor-patient relationship, time constraints, and a lack of education and training in research. CONCLUSIONS: This paper aims to contribute to debates on the overall challenges of recruiting patients to non-therapeutic research. This exploratory study identified general awareness of key ethical issues, as well as key facilitators and barriers to the recruitment of patients to non-therapeutic studies. Due to the important role played by clinicians and clinician-researchers in the recruitment of patients, it is essential to facilitate a greater understanding of the challenges faced; to promote effective communication; and to encourage educational research training programs.
Asunto(s)
Oncología Médica/ética , Neoplasias , Experimentación Humana no Terapéutica/ética , Selección de Paciente/ética , Relaciones Médico-Paciente/ética , Relaciones Investigador-Sujeto/ética , Enfermo Terminal , Altruismo , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Beneficencia , Confidencialidad , Comités de Ética en Investigación , Familia , Humanos , Difusión de la Información , Consentimiento Informado , Oncología Médica/métodos , Oncología Médica/tendencias , Neoplasias/metabolismo , Neoplasias/patología , Autonomía Personal , Investigación Cualitativa , Justicia Social , Apoyo SocialRESUMEN
Research now provides participants greater indications of genetic risk for disease, even for conditions incidental to the research study. Given this development, should such information also be disclosed to the family of research participants? There has been some indication at the national level that genetic risk information can be disclosed to participants' families; however, limited attention has been given to returning research results to family. Thus, we have also incorporated the discussion surrounding the disclosure of genetic risk discovered in the clinic (e.g., genetic testing). A number of important questions are examined: Should genetic research results be provided to family? Are there differences between clinical and research findings that would prevent research results from being disclosed to family? Who should make the disclosure, if in fact it is done at all? We conclude by noting that the return of results is increasingly accepted as technology permits the discovery of more and more medically useful data. However, debates of whether results should be returned to participants must first be settled before moving to familial disclosure.
Asunto(s)
Revelación/ética , Familia , Investigación Genética , Pruebas Genéticas , Privacidad Genética/ética , Guías como Asunto , Humanos , InternacionalidadAsunto(s)
Pena de Muerte , Ética Médica , Obligaciones Morales , Rol del Médico , Relaciones Médico-Paciente/ética , Médicos/ética , American Medical Association , Pena de Muerte/legislación & jurisprudencia , Pena de Muerte/métodos , Códigos de Ética , Víctimas de Crimen/psicología , Humanos , Religión , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
The recent shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) suggest that an increased reliance upon the medical community to support public health violence prevention efforts may be warranted. As physicians are called upon to support these efforts, they must effectively balance their obligations to promote public safety with their traditional obligations to promote the best interests of their individual patients. To meet these concurrent ethical obligations, physicians' participation in public health violence prevention should seek to improve public safety without compromising the care of patients or exposing individuals to undue harm. Physicians should, therefore, report to the appropriate authorities those patients who are at risk of committing violent acts toward the public, but should only disclose the minimal amount of information that is necessary to protect the public. Moreover, physicians should also recommend the separation of violent individuals from the community at large when necessary to improve public safety while advocating for the provision of appropriate treatment measures to improve the patients' well-being.