Clinician perspectives on policy approaches to genetic risk disclosure in families.

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication.

Disclosure of genetic risk in the family: A survey of the Flemish general population.

OBJECTIVES: Results from genomic sequencing often have implications not just for patients but also for their relatives. To date, there are no studies in Belgium exploring whether potential relatives would want to be informed of a genetic risk in the family and their preferences on different approaches to disclosure. METHODS: We surveyed the attitudes of the Flemish general population (n = 407) towards receiving genetic information from their family members, including attitudes towards breaches in confidentiality, preferences for who communicates genetic risk and how the information is communicated, and policy approaches to nondisclosure. RESULTS: Most participants wanted to be informed of their genetic risk and receive genetic testing to confirm their diagnosis. Most preferred to be informed of genetic risk by a close family member, but that when given the choice between a distant family member and a clinician, most participants preferred to be contacted by a clinician. CONCLUSION: In Belgium there is currently no clear legal pathway for clinicians to directly initiate contact with at-risk relatives, but the responses from members of the Flemish population analyzed in this study indicate that this approach to disclosure of genetic risk deserves further consideration. Our findings indicate that the general population would support legislation allowing clinicians to inform relatives even in cases where the patient did not want to inform them. As this is not currently allowed in Belgium, policy alternatives should be considered.

Understanding Pandemic Solidarity: Mutual Support During the First COVID-19 Lockdown in the United Kingdom.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of solidarity has been invoked frequently. Much interest has centred around how citizens and communities support one another during times of uncertainty. Yet, empirical research which accounts and understands citizen's views on pandemic solidarity, or their actual practices has remained limited. Drawing upon the analysis of data from 35 qualitative interviews, this article investigates how residents in England and Scotland enacted, understood, or criticised (the lack of) solidarity during the first national lockdown in the United Kingdom in April 2020-at a time when media celebrated solidarity as being at an all-time high. It finds that although solidarity was practiced by some people, the perceived lack of solidarity was just as pronounced. We conclude that despite frequent mobilisations of solidarity by policy makers and other public actors, actual practices of solidarity are poorly understood-despite the importance of solidarity for public health and policy.

Democratic research: Setting up a research commons for a qualitative, comparative, longitudinal interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The sudden and dramatic advent of the COVID-19 pandemic led to urgent demands for timely, relevant, yet rigorous research. This paper discusses the origin, design, and execution of the SolPan research commons, a large-scale, international, comparative, qualitative research project that sought to respond to the need for knowledge among researchers and policymakers in times of crisis. The form of organization as a research commons is characterized by an underlying solidaristic attitude of its members and its intrinsic organizational features in which research data and knowledge in the study is shared and jointly owned. As such, the project is peer-governed, rooted in (idealist) social values of academia, and aims at providing tools and benefits for its members. In this paper, we discuss challenges and solutions for qualitative studies that seek to operate as research commons.

Informing relatives of their genetic risk: an examination of the Belgian legal context.

Findings from genomic sequencing can have important implications for patients and relatives. For this reason, most professional guidelines support that patients have an ethical duty to inform relatives and, when disclosure does not occur, most guidelines allow health-care professionals (HCPs) to breach confidentiality. Translating the ethical duties to respect the patient's confidentiality and prevent harm in at-risk relatives into legislation is a complex issue due to the both personal and familial nature of genetic information. In many countries there is no specific guideline or law addressing family communication of genetic information and thus it is unclear what duties patients and HCPs have towards at-risk relatives. Using Belgium as an example for countries in which this is the case, we examined the existing Belgian legislation in relation to three central topics: (1) patients' duties to family members, (2) respect for patient confidentiality and privacy, and (3) HCPs' duties to family members. We then investigated international legal frameworks and compared it with the Belgian context to see to what degree international precedent could aid in the interpretation of Belgian law. Based on our review of the legislation, we make recommendations for the interpretation of current law and examine whether there is sufficient legal precedent to answer the questions central to family communication of genetic information. Although we focus on the specific Belgian legislation, the discussions are relevant for many other countries that have similar legislative approaches.

Disclosure of genetic information to family members: a systematic review of normative documents.

PURPOSE: Findings from genomic sequencing can have important implications for patients and family members. Yet, when a patient does not consent to the disclosure of genetic information to relatives, it is unclear how health-care professionals (HCPs) should balance their responsibilities toward patients and their family members and whether breaches in confidentiality are warranted. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of normative documents to understand how HCPs should discuss and facilitate family disclosure, and what should be done in cases where the patient does not consent to disclosure. RESULTS: We analyzed 35 documents from advisory committees at the national, European, and international level. We identified discrepancies regarding the recommended role of HCPs in disclosure. While almost all normative documents supported the disclosure of genetic information without patient consent in limited conditions, the conditions for disclosure were often not well defined. Documents provided varying degrees of information regarding what actions HCPs must take in such situations. CONCLUSION: Our findings present concerns regarding the ability of these normative documents to guide HCPs' decision making around the disclosure of genetic information to family members. Clearer guidance outlining the responsibilities and acceptability of disclosure is necessary to facilitate disclosure of genetic information to family members.

Communicating genetic information to family members: analysis of consent forms for diagnostic genomic sequencing.

Communicating results from genomic sequencing to family members can play an essential role allowing access to surveillance, prevention, treatment or prophylactic measures. Yet, many patients struggle with communication of these results and it is unclear to what extent this is discussed during the consent process. We conducted an online systematic search and used content analysis to explore how consent forms for genomic sequencing address communication of genetic information to family members. Our search yielded 68 consent forms from 11 countries. Although 57 forms alluded to the familial nature of results, forms varied in their discussion of the potential familial implications of results. Only 11 addressed communication of genetic information with family members, with differences in who would be responsible for this process. Several forms offered patients options regarding communication, even in countries where national guidelines and legislation allow for the disclosure of results in the absence of patient consent. These findings are concerning because they show how forms may potentially mislead patients and health care professionals about whether communication is permissible in cases where the patient does not consent. We suggest that providers and health care professionals reconsider how consent forms address communicating genetic information to family members.

The Use of Samples Originating From Doping Control Procedures for Research Purposes: A Qualitative Study.

Doping control samples may be used for research purposes by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited laboratories after their compulsory storage period has expired. This study investigates opinions of stakeholders toward the governance of antidoping research on these samples and to evaluate the current framework. Semistructured interviews were conducted with stakeholders in antidoping research. The distinction between research and quality assurance in the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) is neither well-understood nor interpreted uniformly by WADA-accredited labs. Most laboratories would not seek ethics approval for research on doping control samples. Interviewees considered that athletes should be better informed on what antidoping research can entail. A consistent and uniform approach toward the consent should be employed worldwide. Standards and safeguards should be implemented to reduce the risk of reidentification. Centralization of the Informed Consent Form in the ADAMS (Anti-Doping Administration & Management System) database would facilitate providing more information and allow the implementation of the right to withdraw.

Research ethics review for the use of anonymized samples and data: A systematic review of normative documents.

While the anonymization of biological samples and data may help protect participant privacy, there is still debate over whether this alone is a sufficient safeguard to ensure the ethical conduct of research. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine whether the review of an ethics committee is necessary in the context of anonymized research, and what the considerations in said ethics review would be. The review of normative documents issued by both national and international level organizations reveals a growing concern over the ability of anonymization procedures to prevent against reidentification. This is particularly true in the context of genomic research where genetic material's uniquely identifying nature along with advances in technology have complicated previous standards of identifiability. Even where individual identities may not be identifiable, there is the risk of group harm that may not be protected by anonymization alone. We conclude that the majority of normative documents support that the review of an ethics committee is necessary to address the concerns associated with the use of anonymized samples and data for research.