They do their utmost: promise and limits of palliative care in two refugee camps in Rwanda, a qualitative study.

After often gruelling journeys, some refugees arrive at secure locations with severe injury or illness. Others find themselves shortly thereafter facing a life-limiting health condition. Palliative care has been the focus of recent research, and of academic and aid sector dialogue. In this study, we ask: What are experiences and needs of patients and care providers? What opportunities and obstacles exist to enhance or introduce means of reducing suffering for patients facing serious illness and injury in crisis settings? We present findings of a qualitative sub-study within a larger programme of research exploring moral and practical dimensions of palliative care in humanitarian crisis contexts. This paper presents vignettes about palliative care from refugees and care providers in two refugee camps in Rwanda, and is among the first to provide empirical evidence on first-hand experiences of individuals who have fled protracted conflict and face dying far from home. Along with narratives of their experiences, participants provided a range of recommendations from small (micro) interventions that are low cost, but high impact, through to larger (macro) changes at the systems and societal levels of benefit to policy developers and decision-makers.

The primary care physician role in cancer genetics: a qualitative study of patient experience.

BACKGROUND: Increased availability of genetic testing is changing the primary care role in cancer genetics. The perspective of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their role in support of genetic testing has been explored, but little is known about the expectations of patients or the PCP role once genetic test results are received. METHODS: Two sets of open-ended semi-structured interviews were completed with patients (N=25) in a cancer genetic programme in Ontario, Canada, within 4 months of receiving genetic test results and 1 year later; written reports of test results were collected. RESULTS: Patients expected PCPs to play a role in referral for genetic testing; they hoped that PCPs would have sufficient knowledge to appreciate familial risk and supportive attitudes towards genetic testing. Patients had more difficulty in identifying a PCP role following receipt of genetic test results; cancer patients in particular emphasized this as a role for cancer specialists. Still, some patients anticipated an ongoing PCP role comprising risk-appropriate surveillance or reassurance, especially as specialist care diminished. These expectations were complicated by occasional confusion regarding the ongoing care appropriate to genetic test results. CONCLUSIONS: The potential PCP role in cancer genetics is quite broad. Patients expect PCPs to play a role in risk identification and genetics referral. In addition, some patients anticipated an ongoing role for their PCPs after receiving genetic test results. Sustained efforts will be needed to support PCPs in this expansive role if best use is to be made of investments in cancer genetic services.

When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results.

BACKGROUND: Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm. METHODS: This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000. RESULTS: We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices seem like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and should, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.