AI-Inclusivity in Healthcare: Motivating an Institutional Epistemic Trust Perspective.

This paper motivates institutional epistemic trust as an important ethical consideration informing the responsible development and implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (or AI-inclusivity) in healthcare. Drawing on recent literature on epistemic trust and public trust in science, we start by examining the conditions under which we can have institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare systems and their members as providers of medical information and advice. In particular, we discuss that institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare depends, in part, on the reliability of AI-inclusive medical practices and programs, its knowledge and understanding among different stakeholders involved, its effect on epistemic and communicative duties and burdens on medical professionals and, finally, its interaction and alignment with the public's ethical values and interests as well as background sociopolitical conditions against which AI-inclusive healthcare systems are embedded. To assess the applicability of these conditions, we explore a recent proposal for AI-inclusivity within the Dutch Newborn Screening Program. In doing so, we illustrate the importance, scope, and potential challenges of fostering and maintaining institutional epistemic trust in a context where generating, assessing, and providing reliable and timely screening results for genetic risk is of high priority. Finally, to motivate the general relevance of our discussion and case study, we end with suggestions for strategies, interventions, and measures for AI-inclusivity in healthcare more widely.

Primary care professionals' views on population-based expanded carrier screening: an online focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) involves screening for multiple recessive diseases offered to all couples considering a pregnancy or during pregnancy. Previous research indicates that in some countries primary care professionals are perceived as suitable providers for ECS. However, little is known about their perspectives. We therefore aimed to explore primary care professionals' views on population-based ECS. METHODS: Four online focus groups with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and 16 community midwives were conducted in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Our findings highlight various perspectives on the desirability of population-based ECS. Participants agreed that ECS could enhance reproductive autonomy and thereby prevent suffering of the child and/or parents. However, they also raised several ethical, societal, and psychological concerns, including a tendency towards a perfect society, stigmatization, unequal access to screening and negative psychosocial consequences. Participants believed that provision of population-based ECS would be feasible if prerequisites regarding training and reimbursement for providers would be fulfilled. most GPs considered themselves less suitable or capable of providing ECS, in contrast to midwives who did consider themselves suitable. Nevertheless, participants believed that, if implemented, ECS should be offered in primary care or by public health services rather than as hospital-based specialized care, because they believed a primary care ECS offer increases access in terms of time and location. CONCLUSIONS: While participants believed that an ECS offer would be feasible, they questioned its desirability and priority. Studies on the desirability and feasibility of population-based ECS offered in primary care or public health settings are needed.

Parental experiences of rapid exome sequencing in cases with major ultrasound anomalies during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Adding rapid exome sequencing (rES) to conventional genetic tests improves the diagnostic yield of pregnancies showing ultrasound abnormalities but also carries a higher chance of unsolicited findings. We evaluated how rES, including pre- and post-test counseling, was experienced by parents investigating its impact on decision-making and experienced levels of anxiety. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted. Participating couples (n = 46) were asked to fill in two surveys (pre-test and post-test counseling) and 11 couples were approached for an additional interview. RESULTS: All couples accepted the rES test-offer with the most important reason for testing emphasizing their hope of finding an underlying diagnosis that would aid decision-making. The actual impact on decision-making was low, however, since most parents decided to terminate the pregnancy based on the major and multiple fetal ultrasound anomalies and did not wait for their rES results. Anxiety was elevated for most participants and decreased over time. CONCLUSION: Major congenital anomalies detected on ultrasound seem to have more impact on prenatal parental decision-making and anxiety then the offer and results of rES. However, the impact of rES on reproductive decision-making and experienced anxiety requires further investigation, especially in pregnancies where less (severe) fetal anomalies are detected on ultrasound.

Couple-based expanded carrier screening provided by general practitioners to couples in the Dutch general population: psychological outcomes and reproductive intentions.

PURPOSE: The aim of expanded preconception carrier screening (ECS) is to inform any couple wishing to conceive about their chances of having children with severe autosomal or X-linked recessive conditions. Responsible implementation of ECS as reproductive genetic screening in routine care requires assessment of benefits and harms. We examined the psychological outcomes of couple-based ECS for 50 autosomal recessive (AR) conditions provided by general practitioners (GPs) to couples from the Dutch general population. METHODS: Dutch GPs invited 4,295 women aged 18-40. We examined anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-6), worry, decisional conflict (DCS) over time in participants declining GP counseling or attending GP counseling with/without testing. RESULTS: One hundred ninety couples participated; 130 attended counseling, of whom 117 proceeded with testing. No carrier couples were identified. Before counseling, worry (median 6.0) and anxiety (mean 30-34) were low and lower than the population reference (36.4), although some individuals reported increased anxiety or worry. At follow-up, test acceptors reported less anxiety than test decliners (mean 29 vs. 35); differences in anxiety after testing compared to before counseling were not meaningful. Most participants (90%) were satisfied with their decision (not) to undergo testing. CONCLUSION: Some individuals reported temporarily clinically relevant distress. Overall, the psychological outcomes are acceptable and no barrier to population-wide implementation.

Expanded carrier screening for autosomal recessive conditions in health care: Arguments for a couple-based approach and examination of couples' views.

BACKGROUND: Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is aimed at detecting carrier states for autosomal recessive (AR) or X-linked conditions in couples from the general population planning a pregnancy. ECS is currently usually offered on an individual basis despite the fact that, for AR conditions, only carrier couples are at risk of affected offspring. In this paper, we present a couple-based ECS test-offer for AR conditions, where results are offered as couple-results only, and describe how couples view such an offer. METHODS AND RESULTS: An online survey covering attitudes, perceived difficulty, and intention to take up couple-based ECS was used to examine couples' views. Results show that in 76% of the participating couples there is no objection at all towards receiving couple-results only. Most couples display similar views. Observed discrepancies usually involved one of the couple members having a positive view, whilst the other was neutral. Although views stayed strikingly stable after discussion, the partner's opinion was regarded as important in deciding whether or not to have testing. CONCLUSION: This study shows that most couples do not object to receiving couple rather than individual ECS results, have similar views towards the offer, and are able to discuss differences in views and intentions.

Predictive Genetic Testing of Children for Adult-Onset Conditions: Negotiating Requests with Parents.

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) regularly face requests from parents for predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions. Little is known about how HCPs handle these test requests, given that guidelines recommend such testing is deferred to adulthood unless there is medical benefit to testing before that time. Our study explored the process of decision-making between HCPs and parents. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 HCPs in 8 regional genetic services across the UK, and data were thematically analysed. We found that instead of saying 'yes' or 'no' to such requests, many HCPs framed the consultation as an opportunity to negotiate the optimal time of testing. This, they argued, facilitates parents' considered decision-making, since parents' eventual decisions after requesting a test was often to defer testing their child. In cases where parents' requests remained a sustained wish, most HCPs said they would agree to test, concluding that not testing would not serve the child's wider best interest. As a strategy for determining the child's best interest and for facilitating shared decision-making, we recommend that HCPs re-frame requests for testing from parents as a discussion about the optimal time of testing for adult-onset disease.

Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: With rapid advances in genetic technologies, new genetic information becomes available much faster today than just a few years ago. This has raised questions about whether clinicians have a duty to recontact eligible patients when new genetic information becomes available and, if such duties exist, how they might be implemented in practice. METHODS: We report the results of a systematic literature search on the ethical, legal, social (including psychological), and practical issues involved in recontacting former patients who received genetic services. We identified 1,428 articles, of which 61 are covered in this review. RESULTS: The empirical evidence available indicates that most but not all patients value being recontacted. A minority of (older) articles conclude that recontacting should be a legal duty. Most authors consider recontacting to be ethically desirable but practically unfeasible. Various solutions to overcome these practical barriers have been proposed, involving efforts of laboratories, clinicians, and patients. CONCLUSION: To advance the discussion on implementing recontacting in clinical genetics, we suggest focusing on the question of in what situations recontacting might be regarded as good standard of care. To this end, reaching a professional consensus, obtaining more extensive empirical evidence, and developing professional guidelines are important.

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications.

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation.

Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.

Carrier screening aims to identify couples at risk of conceiving children with a recessive condition. Until recently, carrier screening was primarily offered ancestry-based. Technological advances now facilitate expanded universal carrier screening (EUCS). This scoping review aimed to map EUCS's potential societal implications based on both theoretical studies and empirical evidence. To this aim, we performed a CoCites search to find relevant articles, including articles describing carrier screening for at-risk populations, based on five selected query articles. Forty articles were included. Three main potential societal implications were identified: (1) unwanted medicalization, (2) stigmatization and discrimination of carriers and people affected with the conditions screened and (3) challenges in achieving equitable access. Within these themes, potential positive implications are reduction of ethnic stigmatization in ancestry-based offers and increased equity. Potential negative implications are reinforcement of disability-based stigmatization, less possibility for developing expertise in healthcare and societal pressure to partake in screening. Empirical evidence on all these implications is however scarce. In conclusion, both positive and negative potential societal implications of implementing EUCS, primarily theoretical, were identified, even in at-risk groups where evidence is mostly lacking. Empirical research in EUCS pilots is needed to identify which societal implications are likely to occur and therefore should be overcome when implementing EUCS.

Parent-reported phenotype data on chromosome 6 aberrations collected via an online questionnaire: data consistency and data availability.

BACKGROUND: Even with the introduction of new genetic techniques that enable accurate genomic characterization, knowledge about the phenotypic spectrum of rare chromosomal disorders is still limited, both in literature and existing databases. Yet this clinical information is of utmost importance for health professionals and the parents of children with rare diseases. Since existing databases are often hampered by the limited time and willingness of health professionals to input new data, we collected phenotype data directly from parents of children with a chromosome 6 disorder. These parents were reached via social media, and the information was collected via the online Chromosome 6 Questionnaire, which includes 115 main questions on congenital abnormalities, medical problems, behaviour, growth and development. METHODS: Here, we assess data consistency by comparing parent-reported phenotypes to phenotypes based on copies of medical files for the same individual (n = 20) and data availability by comparing the data available on specific characteristics reported by parents (n = 34) to data available in existing literature (n = 39). RESULTS: The reported answers to the main questions on phenotype characteristics were 85-95% consistent, and the consistency of answers to subsequent more detailed questions was 77-96%. For all but two main questions, significantly more data was collected from parents via the Chromosome 6 Questionnaire than was currently available in literature. For the topics developmental delay and brain abnormalities, no significant difference in the amount of available data was found. The only feature for which significantly more data was available in literature was a sub-question on the type of brain abnormality present. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to compare phenotype data collected directly from parents to data extracted from medical files on the same individuals. We found that the data was highly consistent, and phenotype data collected via the online Chromosome 6 Questionnaire resulted in more available information on most clinical characteristics when compared to phenotypes reported in literature reports thus far. We encourage active patient participation in rare disease research and have shown that parent-reported phenotypes are reliable and contribute to our knowledge of the phenotypic spectrum of rare chromosomal disorders.