Old Challenges or New Issues? Genetic Health Professionals' Experiences Obtaining Informed Consent in Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing

Collaborative coding in inductive content analysis: Why, when, and how to do it

Inductive content analysis (ICA) is a useful method for analyzing qualitative data in genetic counseling research. It is particularly relevant when the goal is to examine and improve practices or develop recommendations. Although ICA can be undertaken by a single analyst, ideally there is involvement of multiple analysts (or co-coders). Co-coding can bring many benefits to qualitative analysis that sits within a constructivist paradigm, including developing a representation of the data that is not only understandable to more than one individual but also richer and more nuanced. It also provides an opportunity for mentoring more junior researchers and can be an efficient way to analyze large datasets. However, co-coding requires important planning and consideration, and there is currently a paucity of clear guidance. In this paper, we provide an outline of the small body of existing literature on this topic and propose six flexible step-by-step components of our approach to co-coding in ICA, based on our own work. We have utilized it to analyze reporting practices and perspectives for diagnostic genomic sequencing, informed consent for genetic testing, data sharing and storage, and genomic newborn screening, among other topics. To illustrate these components, we present some example vignettes to show how these procedures can be applied in different scenarios and with different analysts.

What does a consent conversation for whole genome sequencing look like in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service? An observational study

Patient choice consent for whole genome sequencing (WGS) through the Genomic Medicine Service in England covers consent to diagnostic testing and an invitation to the National Genomic Research Library (NGRL). Little is known about what consent conversations for WGS look like in practice. We audio-recorded and analysed the content and structure of consent appointments (n = 26) between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and parents of children with rare disease across seven NHS Trusts. Appointments frequently covered the potential findings from testing, implications for family members, and DNA storage, but often omitted that data may be reanalysed in the future if a diagnosis is not made. Consent to the NGRL was typically sought during the same appointment; these discussions varied in content, but frequently included a background to the NGRL and data security. HCPs often tempered expectations around what WGS can achieve and asked questions to clarify parents' understanding, but less commonly elicited parents' values and concerns. Administrative tasks were time-consuming, but took less time when consent was recorded digitally. Future training should emphasise how to elicit patients' values and concerns. Digital infrastructure and hiring roles such as genomic associates to support consent may be important strategies to meet the workload demands of WGS.

Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has the potential to screen for a wider range of genetic conditions than is currently possible at an early stage of pregnancy and with minimal risks. As such, there have been calls to apply a 'threshold of seriousness' to limit the scope of conditions being tested. This approach is based on concerns about society at large and the potential impact on specific groups within it. In this paper, we argue that limiting the scope of NIPT using the criterion of 'seriousness' is arbitrary, potentially stigmatises certain disabilities over others and fails to respect reproductive autonomy. We contend that concerns about expanded NIPT are more appropriately addressed by the provision of adequate information, counselling and consent procedures. We recommend a decision-making process that helps healthcare providers support prospective parents to make informed decisions about the nature and scope of NIPT screening based on their own values and social context. In addition to addressing concerns about expanded NIPT screening, this process would help clinicians to obtain legally valid consent and discharge their duty of care (including the duty to inform) in the prenatal context.

Genomic sequencing: the case for equity of care in the era of personalized medicine

Over the past two decades, genomic sequencing (exome and genome) has proven to be critical in providing a faster and more accurate diagnosis as well as tailored treatment plans for a variety of populations. Despite its potential, disparities in access to genomic sequencing persist, predominantly among underrepresented and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and populations. This inequity stems from factors such as: 1) high costs of sequencing, 2) significant gaps in insurance coverage, 3) limited availability of genetic services in many healthcare institutions and geographic areas, and 4) lack of diversity in genetic research and databases. Addressing these barriers is essential to realizing the full benefits of personalized treatment approaches for all individuals. By doing so, healthcare systems can move towards a more inclusive model that delivers optimal care for everyone. This manuscript emphasizes these issues by considering diverse perspectives from various ethnic groups, summarizing findings across different patient populations (adults, pediatrics, critical/non-critical care), and highlighting the importance of collaboration and workforce training in genomic sequencing and interpretation. IMPACT: Presentation of exemplary studies demonstrating the advantages of genomic sequencing in various clinical settings and a variety of high-risk populations. Review of obstacles in providing equitable genomic medical care and the importance of national and international collaborations An overview of the ethical aspects of genomic sequencing is provided.

Attitudes Towards Non-directiveness Among Medical Geneticists in Germany and Switzerland

The principle of non-directiveness remains an important tenet in genetics. However, the concept has encountered growing criticism over the last two decades. There is an ongoing discussion about its appropriateness for specific situations in genetics, especially in light of recent significant advancements in genetic medicine. Despite the debate surrounding non-directiveness, there is a notable lack of up-to-date international research empirically investigating the issue from the perspective of those who actually do genetic counselling. Addressing this gap, our article delves into the viewpoints and experiences of medical geneticists in Germany and Switzerland. Twenty qualitative interviews were analysed employing reflexive thematic analysis. Participants' responses revealed substantial uncertainties and divergences in their understanding and application of the concept. It seems to cause distress since many geneticists stated that the principle was difficult to put into clinical practice and was no longer ethically justified given the increasing likelihood of therapeutic implications resulting from genomic testing outcomes. The insights provided by our qualitative empirical study accord with the ongoing theoretical debate regarding the definition, legitimacy, and feasibility of the principle. An adequately nuanced understanding and application of non-directiveness seems crucial to circumvent the risks inherent in the principle, while promoting patient autonomy and beneficence.

Evaluation of a two-step model of opportunistic genomic screening

Increasing use of diagnostic genomic sequencing is pushing health services to confront the issue of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). To date, OGS has been offered concomitant with diagnostic testing. In contrast, we piloted a service offering OGS after return of diagnostic testing results. Evaluation was designed to provide insights for future models of service and included patient surveys at three time points, semi-structured interviews with genetic counsellors (GCs) and a focus group with medical scientists. Uptake was relatively low: 83 of 200 patients approached (42%) attended the OGS service, with 81 accepting OGS. Whilst many who declined to attend the service cited practical barriers, others gave reasons that indicated this was a considered decision. Despite specific genetic counselling, one third of patients did not understand the scope of re-analysis. Yet after post-test counselling, all respondents with novel pathogenic additional findings (AF) understood the implications and reported relevant follow-up. Recall was high: five months after last contact, 75% recalled being offered OGS without prompting. GC interviews and patient survey responses provide insights into complexities that influence patient support needs, including diagnostic status and AF result type. There was no consensus among patients or professionals about when to offer OGS. There was a clear preference for multiple, flexible methods of information provision; achieving this whilst balancing patient support needs and resource requirements is a challenge requiring further investigation. Decisions about whether, when and how to offer OGS are complex; our study shows the two-step approach warrants further exploration.

Using a chat-based informed consent tool in large-scale genomic research

OBJECTIVE

We implemented a chatbot consent tool to shift the time burden from study staff in support of a national genomics research study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We created an Institutional Review Board-approved script for automated chat-based consent. We compared data from prospective participants who used the tool or had traditional consent conversations with study staff.

RESULTS

Chat-based consent, completed on a user's schedule, was shorter than the traditional conversation. This did not lead to a significant change in affirmative consents. Within affirmative consents and declines, more prospective participants completed the chat-based process. A quiz to assess chat-based consent user understanding had a high pass rate with no reported negative experiences.

CONCLUSION

Our report shows that a structured script can convey important information while realizing the benefits of automation and burden shifting. Analysis suggests that it may be advantageous to use chatbots to scale this rate-limiting step in large research projects.

'It's a nightmare': informed consent in paediatric genome-wide sequencing. A qualitative expert interview study from Germany and Switzerland

The use of genome-wide sequencing (GWS) in paediatrics has added complexity to informed consent (IC) and pretest counselling because of the vast number and interpretation of potential findings, and their implications. However, empirical data from continental Europe on these issues remains limited. This study therefore aimed to explore the experiences and views of medical geneticists working with children in Germany and Switzerland regarding the challenges of obtaining valid IC in paediatric GWS. Qualitative interviews with 20 medical geneticists were analysed employing reflexive thematic analysis. In the interviews, many medical geneticists questioned the validity of parents' IC due to the enormous amount of relevant information given and the variety and complexity of the possible test outcomes. Key barriers identified included familial implications, administrative challenges and struggles with non-directiveness. Medical geneticists' suggestions for improvement included increasing the number of genetics professionals and better information material, which is crucial as GWS becomes a diagnostic standard in the early care pathways of children. An adjustment of aspirations from still existing ideal of traditional fully IC to appropriate IC seems to be needed. Such a more realistic and ethically sound adaptation of the requirements for IC can lead to better 'informedness' and improve the validity of the consent. This might also help reduce the moral distress for the medical geneticists involved.

Defining critical educational components of informed consent for genetic testing: views of US-based genetic counselors and medical geneticists

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendation (CADRe) framework proposes that key components of informed consent for genetic testing can be covered with a targeted discussion for many conditions rather than a time-intensive traditional genetic counseling approach. We surveyed US genetics professionals (medical geneticists and genetic counselors) on their response to scenarios that proposed core informed consent concepts for clinical genetic testing developed in a prior expert consensus process. The anonymous online survey included responses to 3 (of 6 possible) different clinical scenarios that summarized the application of the core concepts. There was a binary (yes/no) question asking respondents whether they agreed the scenarios included the minimum necessary and critical educational concepts to allow an informed decision. Respondents then provided open-ended feedback on what concepts were missing or could be removed. At least one scenario was completed by 238 respondents. For all but one scenario, over 65% of respondents agreed that the identified concepts portrayed were sufficient for an informed decision; the exome scenario had the lowest agreement (58%). Qualitative analysis of the open-ended comments showed no consistently mentioned concepts to add or remove. The level of agreement with the example scenarios suggests that the minimum critical educational components for pre-test informed consent proposed in our prior work is a reasonable starting place for targeted pre-test discussions. This may be helpful in providing consistency to the clinical practice of both genetics and non-genetics providers, meeting patients' informational needs, tailoring consent for psychosocial support, and in future guideline development.

Structured Ethical Review for Wastewater-Based Testing in Support of Public Health

Wastewater-based testing (WBT) for SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly expanded over the past three years due to its ability to provide a comprehensive measurement of disease prevalence independent of clinical testing. The development and simultaneous application of WBT measured biomarkers for research activities and for the pursuit of public health goals, both areas with well-established ethical frameworks. Currently, WBT practitioners do not employ a standardized ethical review process, introducing the potential for adverse outcomes for WBT professionals and community members. To address this deficiency, an interdisciplinary workshop developed a framework for a structured ethical review of WBT. The workshop employed a consensus approach to create this framework as a set of 11 questions derived from primarily public health guidance. This study retrospectively applied these questions to SARS-CoV-2 monitoring programs covering the emergent phase of the pandemic (3/2020-2/2022 (n = 53)). Of note, 43% of answers highlight a lack of reported information to assess. Therefore, a systematic framework would at a minimum structure the communication of ethical considerations for applications of WBT. Consistent application of an ethical review will also assist in developing a practice of updating approaches and techniques to reflect the concerns held by both those practicing and those being monitored by WBT supported programs.

Structured Ethical Review for Wastewater-Based Testing

Wastewater-based testing (WBT) for SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly expanded over the past three years due to its ability to provide a comprehensive measurement of disease prevalence independent of clinical testing. The development and simultaneous application of the field blurred the boundary between measuring biomarkers for research activities and for pursuit of public health goals, both areas with well-established ethical frameworks. Currently, WBT practitioners do not employ a standardized ethical review process (or associated data management safeguards), introducing the potential for adverse outcomes for WBT professionals and community members. To address this deficiency, an interdisciplinary group developed a framework for a structured ethical review of WBT. The workshop employed a consensus approach to create this framework as a set of 11-questions derived from primarily public health guidance because of the common exemption of wastewater samples to human subject research considerations. This study retrospectively applied the set of questions to peer- reviewed published reports on SARS-CoV-2 monitoring campaigns covering the emergent phase of the pandemic from March 2020 to February 2022 (n=53). Overall, 43% of the responses to the questions were unable to be assessed because of lack of reported information. It is therefore hypothesized that a systematic framework would at a minimum improve the communication of key ethical considerations for the application of WBT. Consistent application of a standardized ethical review will also assist in developing an engaged practice of critically applying and updating approaches and techniques to reflect the concerns held by both those practicing and being monitored by WBT supported campaigns.

Abstract Figure

Synopsis

Development of a structured ethical review facilitates retrospective analysis of published studies and drafted scenarios in the context of wastewater-based testing.

An spanish study of secondary findings in families affected with mendelian disorders: choices, prevalence and family history

Clinical exome sequencing has the potential to identify pathogenic variants unrelated to the purpose of the study (secondary findings, SFs). Data describing actual choices of SFs in participants in a clinical setting and factors influencing their decision are virtually non-existant in Europe. In this work, we report the acceptance rate of SFs, calculate their prevalence and study factors associated with the decision in a cohort of patients affected with a rare genetic disorder in a Spanish Hospital. Finally, we re-examine the presence of previously non reported family history in positive cases. We retrospectively reviewed informed consent choices and SF results from 824 unrelated probands affected with rare genetic disorders who underwent whole-genome or exome sequencing. Ninety percent of families (740/824) affected with rare disorders wished to be informed of SFs. Declining SFs was associated with a prenatal setting (30% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.025), consanguinity (19% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.013), male gender (10.6% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.00865) and the proband being a minor (10.6% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.014). Overall, 27 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 27 individuals, with an SF prevalence of 3.6%. Disclosure of SFs increased the percentage of positive family histories and resulted in early diagnosis or changes in the management of 10 individuals from five families. We show that the acceptance of SFs in Spain is high and the disclosure of SFs leads to a clinically meaningful change in the medical management of individuals.

"Development and Implementation of Novel Chatbot-based Genomic Research Consent"

Objective

To conduct a retrospective analysis comparing traditional human-based consenting to an automated chat-based consenting process.

Materials and Methods

We developed a new chat-based consent using our IRB-approved consent forms. We leveraged a previously developed platform (GiaⓇ, or "Genetic Information Assistant") to deliver the chat content to candidate participants. The content included information about the study, educational information, and a quiz to assess understanding. We analyzed 144 families referred to our study during a 6-month time period. A total of 37 families completed consent using the traditional process, while 35 families completed consent using Gia.

Results

Engagement rates were similar between both consenting methods. The median length of the consent conversation was shorter for Gia users compared to traditional (44 vs. 76 minutes). Additionally, the total time from referral to consent completion was faster with Gia (5 vs. 16 days). Within Gia, understanding was assessed with a 10-question quiz that most participants (96%) passed. Feedback about the chat consent indicated that 86% of participants had a positive experience.

Discussion

Using Gia resulted in time savings for both the participant and study staff. The chatbot enables studies to reach more potential candidates. We identified five key features related to human-centered design for developing a consent chat.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests that it is feasible to use an automated chatbot to scale obtaining informed consent for a genomics research study. We further identify a number of advantages when using a chatbot.

Clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with unsolicited findings in next‐generation sequencing: “A great technology creating new dilemmas”

Unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic genetic testing are a subject of debate. The emerging consensus is that some UFs from genetic testing should be disclosed, but recommendations on UF disclosure generally leave room for variation in practice. This study aimed to explore clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with UFs during pretest counseling and UF disclosure. We interviewed 20 certified clinical genetics medical specialists and clinical genetics residents, working in 7 Dutch genetic centers. Participants indicated that discussing the probability of detecting UFs is an integral part of pretest counseling and informed consent. However, they expressed doubts about the degree to which this discussion should occur and about what information they should share with patients. They argued that the contents of their counseling should depend on the individual patient's capacity to understand information. These results endorse the importance of tailored pretest counseling alongside informed consent for optimal genetic consultations. While "medical actionability" is broadly accepted as an important criterion for the disclosure of UFs, participants experienced substantial uncertainty regarding this concept. This study underscores the need for further demarcation of what exactly constitutes medical actionability. Installation of an expert panel to help healthcare professionals decide what variants to disclose will support them when facing the dilemmas presented by UFs.

Genomic tools for health: Secondary findings as findings to be shared

PURPOSE

Whether and how to disclose secondary finding (SF) information to children is ethically debated. Some argue that genetic testing of minors should be limited to preserve the child's future autonomy. Others suggest that disclosure of SFs can occur if it is in the best interests of the child. However, the ways that parents conceptualize and weigh their child's future autonomy against the interests of their child and other family members are unknown.

METHODS

To explore how parents understand SF disclosure in the context of their child and other family members' lives, we conducted semistructured interviews with 30 families (40 parents in total). All parents had children who were enrolled in a genetic sequencing protocol that returned results by default.

RESULTS

We found that parents did not routinely conceptualize SFs as distinctive health information. Rather parents saw this information as part of their child's overall health. To make decisions about disclosure, parents weighed their child's ability to understand the SF information and their other family member's need to know.

CONCLUSION

Because most families desired SF information, we argue that disclosure of SF be reconceptualized to reflect the lived experiences of those who may receive this information.

The Challenge of Genetic Variants of Uncertain Clinical Significance : A Narrative Review

Genomic tests expand diagnostic and screening opportunities but also identify genetic variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs). Only a minority of VUSs are likely to prove pathogenic when later reassessed, but resolution of the uncertainty is rarely timely. That uncertainty adds complexity to clinical decision making and can result in harms and costs to patients and the health care system, including the time-consuming analysis required to interpret a VUS and the potential for unnecessary treatment and adverse psychological effects. Current efforts to improve variant interpretation will help reduce the scope of the problem, but the high prevalence of rare and novel variants in the human genome points to VUSs as an ongoing challenge. Additional strategies can help mitigate the potential harms of VUSs, including testing protocols that limit identification or reporting of VUSs, subclassification of VUSs according to the likelihood of pathogenicity, routine family-based evaluation of variants, and enhanced counseling efforts. All involve tradeoffs, and the appropriate balance of measures is likely to vary for different test uses and clinical settings. Cross-specialty deliberation and public input could contribute to systematic and broadly supported policies for managing VUSs.

Moving from 'fully' to 'appropriately' informed consent in genomics: The PROMICE framework

Genomic sequencing technologies (GS) pose novel challenges not seen in older genetic technologies, making traditional standards for fully informed consent difficult or impossible to meet. This is due to factors including the complexity of the test and the broad range of results it may identify. Meaningful informed consent is even more challenging to secure in contexts involving significant time constraints and emotional distress, such as when rapid genomic testing (RGS) is performed in neonatal intensive care units. In this article, we propose that informed consent matters not for its own sake, but because obtaining it furthers a range of morally important goals, such as promoting autonomy, well-being, and trust in medicine. These goals form the basis of a new framework [PROmoting Morally Important Consent Ends (PROMICE)] for assessing the ethical appropriateness of various informed consent models. We illustrate this framework with two examples: (a) a tiered and layered consent model for obtaining consent for GS, and (b) consent for RGS in critically ill newborns. We conclude that appropriately-rather than fully-informed consent provides the correct standard for genomic medicine and research.

Informed consent practices for exome sequencing: An interview study with clinical geneticists in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Genomic sequencing is being used more frequently in the clinic, not only by clinical geneticists, but also by other specialists ("mainstreaming"). The use of genomic sequencing gives rise to challenges regarding informed consent, as it can yield more, and more complex results.

METHODS

This study maps the informed consent process for exome sequencing in the Netherlands by means of semistructured interviews with 14 clinical geneticists. Interviewees were asked about their strategies for informing patients about exome sequencing and supporting patients in their decision making, about what they think of as essential information elements, about the challenges they experience, and about their preferences for future policy and practice.

RESULTS

Clinical geneticists typically discuss the following topics: the nature and aim of the test, the possible results (including unsolicited or incidental findings and Variants of Uncertain Significance) of the test and the consequences of those results for the patient and their family members. Some clinical geneticists use a layered approach to informed consent, meaning that they give short and concise information at first, and provide more detailed information depending on the situation or the needs of the patient.

CONCLUSION

During pre-test counseling for genomic sequencing, clinical geneticists use various strategies to enhance patient understanding and personalization of the informed consent process. Going forward, layering information may be part of a solution to ethical challenges of informed consent, also in mainstream settings.

Consent for rapid genomic sequencing for critically ill children: legal and ethical issues

Although rapid genomic sequencing (RGS) is improving care for critically ill children with rare disease, it also raises important ethical questions that need to be explored as its use becomes more widespread. Two such questions relate to the degree of consent that should be required for RGS to proceed and whether it might ever be appropriate to override parents' decisions not to allow RGS to be performed in their critically ill child. To explore these questions, we first examine the legal frameworks on securing consent for genomic sequencing and how they apply to the specific context of RGS for critically ill children. We then use a tool from clinical ethics, the Zone of Parental Discretion, to explore two case studies and identify under which circumstances it might be appropriate for parental refusal of RGS to be overridden. We argue that RGS may be a context where, in addition to assessing the complexity of the test offered, it is ethically appropriate to consider an effect on patient outcomes when deciding the degree of consent required. We also suggest that there are some contexts where it may be ethically justified to perform RGS, even when it is actively against the wishes of the parents. More work is needed to examine exactly how 'time-sensitive' exceptions to current guidance on consent for genomic sequencing could be formulated and operationalised for RGS for critically ill-children.

Decision-making, attitudes, and understanding among patients and relatives invited to undergo genome sequencing in the 100,000 Genomes Project: A multisite survey study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess decisions, attitudes, and understanding of participants (patients, parents, relatives) having genome sequencing for rare disease diagnosis.

METHODS

This study involved a cross-sectional observational survey with participants in the 100,000 Genomes Project.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 51% (504/978). Most participants self-reported that they had decided to undergo genome sequencing (94%) and that this was an informed decision (84%) with low decisional conflict (95%). Most self-reported that they had chosen to receive additional findings (88%) and that this was an informed decision (89%) with low decisional conflict (95%). Participants were motivated more by the desire to help others via research than by the belief it would help them obtain a diagnosis (Z = 14.23, P = 5.75 × 10^-46), although both motivations were high. Concerns were relatively few but, where expressed, were more about the potential psychological impact of results than data sharing/access (Z = 9.61, P = 7.65 × 10^-22). Concerns were higher among male, Asian or Asian British, and more religious participants. General and context-specific understanding of genome sequencing were both moderately high (means 5.2/9.0 and 22.5/28.0, respectively).

CONCLUSION

These findings are useful to inform consent guidelines and clinical implementation of genome sequencing.

Primary care providers' responses to unsolicited Lynch syndrome secondary findings of varying clinical significance

Purpose:

How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance (VUS), or benign) is unknown.

Methods:

We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1=highest priority, 6=lowest priority).

Results:

PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (72% vs 16%, p<0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or EGD, in response to pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (43% vs 4%, p<0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUSs (both p>0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUSs, 4.3 for benign variants, all p≤0.014).

Conclusions:

Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUSs as SFs would substantially increase downstream health care utilization.

Should we respect parents' views about which results to return from genomic sequencing?

Genomic sequencing (GS) is now well embedded in clinical practice. However, guidelines issued by professional bodies disagree about whether unsolicited findings (UF)-i.e., disease-causing changes found in the DNA unrelated to the reason for testing-should be reported if they are identified inadvertently during data analysis. This extends to a lack of clarity regarding parents' ability to decide about receiving UF for their children. To address this, I use an ethical framework, the Zone of Parental Discretion (ZPD), to consider which UF parents should be allowed to choose (not) to receive and examine how well this assessment aligns with existing professional recommendations. Assessment of guidelines shows recommendations ranging from leaving the decision to the discretion of laboratories through to mandatory reporting for UF for childhood onset, treatable/preventable conditions. The ZPD suggests that parents' decisions should be respected, even where there is no expected benefit, provided that there is not sufficient evidence of serious harm. Using this lens, parents should be able to choose whether or not to know UF for adult-onset conditions in their children, but only insofar as there is insufficient evidence that this knowledge will cause harm or benefit. In contrast, parents should not be allowed to refuse receiving UF for childhood-onset medically actionable conditions. The ZPD is a helpful tool for assessing where it is appropriate to offer parents the choice of receiving UF for their children. This has implications for refinement of policy and laboratory reporting practices, development of consent forms, and genetic counselling practice.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.