Mothers' process of decision making for gastrostomy placement

In this article we present the findings of an exploration of mothers' discourses on decision making for gastrostomy placement for their child. Exploring in-depth interviews of a purposive sample, we analyzed the mothers' discourses of the decision-making process to understand how their experiences of the process influenced their subsequent constructions of decision making. Mothers negotiated decision making by reflecting on their personal experiences of feeding their child, either orally or via a tube, and interwove their background experiences with the communications from members of the health care team until a decision was reached. Decision making was often fraught with difficulty, resulting in anxiety and guilt. Experiences of decision making ranged from perceived coercion to true choice, which encompasses a truly child-centered decision. The resulting impact of the decision-making process on the mothers was profound. We conclude with an exploration of the implications for clinical practice and describe how health care professionals can support mothers to ensure that decision-making processes for gastrostomy placement in children are significantly improved.

The changing landscape of genetic testing and its impact on clinical and laboratory services and research in Europe

The arrival of new genetic technologies that allow efficient examination of the whole human genome (microarray, next-generation sequencing) will impact upon both laboratories (cytogenetic and molecular genetics in the first instance) and clinical/medical genetic services. The interpretation of analytical results in terms of their clinical relevance and the predicted health status poses a challenge to both laboratory and clinical geneticists, due to the wealth and complexity of the information obtained. There is a need to discuss how to best restructure the genetic services logistically and to determine the clinical utility of genetic testing so that patients can receive appropriate advice and genetic testing. To weigh up the questions and challenges of the new genetic technologies, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) held a series of workshops on 10 June 2010 in Gothenburg. This was part of an ESHG satellite symposium on the 'Changing landscape of genetic testing', co-organized by the ESHG Genetic Services Quality and Public and Professional Policy Committees. The audience consisted of a mix of geneticists, ethicists, social scientists and lawyers. In this paper, we summarize the discussions during the workshops and present some of the identified ways forward to improve and adapt the genetic services so that patients receive accurate and relevant information. This paper covers ethics, clinical utility, primary care, genetic services and the blurring boundaries between healthcare and research.

Distinguishing research from clinical care in cancer genetics: theoretical justifications and practical strategies

The relationship between clinical research and clinical care is often perceived as unclear, particularly in highly technological subspecialties. This ambiguity is illustrated in cancer genetics where research protocols are frequently used to provide access to procedures that may be offered as a clinical service in other specialties. The project on which this paper is based investigated lay and expert perceptions of the activities which take place within the cancer genetics clinic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 individuals who are involved in cancer genetics research in the UK, the majority (18 clinical geneticists, 10 genetic counsellors/nurse specialists) of whom also provide a clinical service. Interviewees emphasised the need to differentiate research from clinical care for service users, and provided regulatory, ethical, economic and translational justifications for distinguishing these activities. A number of strategies for differentiating research from clinical care were described by those who work as healthcare professionals, which involved deliberately displacing these activities in time and space. It is argued that by distinguishing research from clinical care clinical researchers are engaging in a form of boundary work which enables them to manage what they experience as a conflict of interest generated by the different roles they occupy within the cancer genetics clinic. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for the process of informed consent.

Recall of participation in research projects in cancer genetics: some implications for research ethics

The aim of this study is to assess patients' recall of their previous research participation. Recall was established during interviews and compared with entries from clinical notes. Participants were 49 patients who had previously participated in different types of research. Of the 49 patients, 45 (92%) interviewees recalled 69 of 109 (63%) study participations. Level of recall varied according to the type of research, some participants clearly recalled the details of research aims, giving consent and research procedures. Others recalled procedures (e.g. DNA testing) but were unclear about their purpose. There was no significant effect of time on recall. Some types of research participation (e.g. DNA testing) may be recalled as clinical care. We argue that such misunderstandings may have the potential to undermine participants' ongoing consent, particularly in ongoing/longitudinal studies. Valid consent may be best achieved by re-assessing the scope of consent and relating it to the nature of the interventions themselves rather than the reasons for undertaking them.

Ethics and research governance: the views of researchers, health-care professionals and other stakeholders

The objective of this study is to describe researchers', health-care providers' and other stakeholders' views of ethical review and research governance procedures. The study design involved qualitative semi-structured interviews. Participants included 60 individuals who either undertook research in the subspecialty of cancer genetics ( n = 40) or were involved in biomedical research in other capacities ( n = 20), e.g. research governance and oversight, patient support groups or research funding. While all interviewees observed that oversight is necessary to protect research participants, ethical review and research governance (ERG) arrangements were described negatively throughout these interviews. Interviewees identified a number of problems with ERG, including: over-bureaucratization, over-standardization of information requirements for different types of research, a lack of standardization in the types of information required by different committees for the same research and a lack of consistency in different committees' responses. A number of solutions were proposed including streamlining application procedures and harmonizing committees' responses and information requirements. Recent reports suggest that ethical review procedures and research governance arrangements threaten the possibility of undertaking clinical research in the UK, hence the introduction of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) is long overdue. However, while IRAS may solve some of the problems identified by interviewees, it remains to be seen to what extent it will impact upon the very negative perceptions of ethics and research governance procedures reported here.