The goldilocks conundrum: Disclosing discrimination risks in informed consent

Informed consent is a foundational ethical and legal principle in human subjects research and clinical care. Yet, there is extensive debate over how much information must be disclosed to meet ethical goals and legal requirements, especially about non-medical risks. In this online, survey-based experiment of a diverse sample of the US general population, we explored one aspect of this debate by testing whether the level of detail included in informed consent regarding genetic anti-discrimination protections alters individuals' willingness to participate in a hypothetical research study and their concerns regarding genetic discrimination. Participants were randomized to receive sample informed consent language with one of three levels of disclosure regarding the protections and limitations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Our sample (n = 1,195) had a mean age of 45.9 (SD = 17.9) years and 40% with ≤high school education. Participants were 51.3% female and 36.7% non-Hispanic White. On average, those who received consent language with none of GINA's limitations highlighted were more willing to participate than those who were warned about various gaps in GINA. They also had significantly lower perceived risk of discrimination than those presented with the most information about limitations. Our study found that providing more comprehensive information about GINA notably lessened willingness to participate in the hypothetical studies, highlighting the need for clinicians and researchers to thoughtfully consider how to disclose anti-discrimination risks in informed consent.

Addressing privacy risk in neuroscience data: from data protection to harm prevention

A recent increase in the amount and availability of neuroscience data within and outside of research and clinical contexts will enhance reproducibility of neuroscience research leading to new discoveries on the mechanisms of brain function in healthy and disease states. However, the uniquely sensitive nature of neuroscience data raises critical concerns regarding data privacy. In response to these concerns, various policy and regulatory approaches have been proposed to control access to and disclosure of neuroscience data, but excessive restriction may hamper open science practice in the field. This article argues that it may now be time to expand the scope of regulatory discourse beyond protection of neuroscience data and to begin contemplating how to prevent potential harm. Legal prohibition of harmful use of neuroscience data could provide an ultimate safeguard against privacy risks and would help us chart a path toward protecting data subjects without unduly limiting the benefits of open science practice. Here we take the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) as a reference for this new legislation and search for answers to the core regulatory questions based on what we have learned from the enactment of the GINA and the merits and weaknesses of the protection it provides.

Anti-Selection is Only the Beginning

This commentary proposes the need for greater normative debate about when, if ever, it is appropriate for insurers to access genetic information of insureds to combat anti-selection.

Genetic Discrimination: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act's Impact on Practice and Research

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) provides federal safeguards to prohibit employer or insurance discrimination based on personal or familial genetic information or conditions. Awareness of the implications of genetic testing in individuals and families and of state and federal legislation in place for their protection is an essential component of oncology nursing practice. This article discusses the critical role of the oncology nurse in interacting with and providing information about GINA to patients in a cancer care setting engaged in genetic assessment.

Black Women's Confidence in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Black women at-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) continue to underutilize genetic counseling and testing (GCT). One reason for this disparity is a fear of discrimination from insurance companies if identified as high-risk. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was enacted to protect against this type of discrimination; however, Black women’s levels of confidence in this law are unknown. In this descriptive study, we sought to (1) assess Black women’s confidence in the GINA law and (2) identify multilevel factors related to their confidence in GINA. Ninety-four Black women at-risk of HBOC completed surveys that assessed intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural factors. Multiple regression analysis determined factors associated with confidence in GINA. Most women were ≤50 years of age (66.0%) and about half never had a cancer diagnosis (51.1%). Confidence in GINA was moderate (mean = 10.67; standard deviation = 2.54; range = 5–15). Women who valued GCT reported more confidence in GINA (β = 0.345; CI 0.017 to 0.673; p = 0.040). Lack of confidence in GINA may serve as a barrier to seeking GCT. Efforts to increase the perceived value of GCT among Black women could be benefited by increasing awareness of national efforts towards privacy protections of genetic information.

Confidentiality & the Risk of Genetic Discrimination: What Surgeons Need to Know

In the past decade, laws have been passed to provide legal protections against genetic discrimination. Many members of the public and medical providers are unaware of the legislation, and concerns about genetic privacy can prevent delivery of optimal medical care. Patient health information, including genetic testing and family history, is protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Additional protections are granted through the Americans with Disabilities Act, state laws, and the Affordable Care Act. Communicating a genetic test result back to a patient is important for medical management decisions and family members.

Ethics in prion disease

This paper is intended to discuss some of the scientific and ethical issues that are created by increased research efforts towards earlier diagnosis, as well as to treatment of, human prion diseases (and related dementias), including the resulting consequences for individuals, their families, and society. Most patients with prion disease currently are diagnosed when they are about 2/3 of the way through their disease course (Geschwind et al., 2010a; Paterson et al., 2012b), when the disease has progressed so far that even treatments that stop the disease process would probably have little benefit. Although there are currently no treatments available for prion diseases, we and others have realized that we must diagnose patients earlier and with greater accuracy so that future treatments have hope of success. As approximately 15% of prion diseases have a autosomal dominant genetic etiology, this further adds to the complexity of ethical issues, particularly regarding when to conduct genetic testing, release of genetic results, and when or if to implement experimental therapies. Human prion diseases are both infectious and transmissible; great care is required to balance the needs of the family and individual with both public health needs and strained hospital budgets. It is essential to proactively examine and address the ethical issues involved, as well as to define and in turn provide best standards of care.

Uptake of genetic testing by relatives of lynch syndrome probands: a systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Screening of persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome can yield substantial benefits at acceptable costs, presuming sufficient uptake of genetic testing by first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the frequency of and factors associated with genetic testing of first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands.

METHODS

We searched 4 databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo, PUBMED, and SCOPUS) for articles published through May 2011 reporting uptake of genetic testing by relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. Two investigators independently screened articles to determine whether they met inclusion criteria; data were collected on study population, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. A narrative, qualitative systematic review was performed.

RESULTS

We identified 1258 potentially relevant articles; 533 underwent full-text review, and 8 were included in the final analysis. Of first-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands, 52% or less received genetic testing. For each proband, 3.6 or fewer relatives underwent genetic testing. Demographic factors (age <50 years, female sex, parenthood, level of education, employment, participation in medical studies), psychological factors (lack of depressive symptoms), and possibly family history (greater number of relatives with cancer) were associated with uptake of genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing appears to be underutilized by first-degree relatives of patients with Lynch syndrome. The clinical benefit and economic feasibility of screening persons with colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome depend on optimizing family-wide uptake of genetic testing. Future research and clinical efforts should focus on ways to overcome barriers to genetic testing.

Translational bioinformatics and healthcare informatics: computational and ethical challenges

Exponentially growing biological and bioinformatics data sets present a challenge and an opportunity for researchers to contribute to the understanding of the genetic basis of phenotypes. Due to breakthroughs in microarray technology, it is possible to simultaneously monitor the expressions of thousands of genes, and it is imperative that researchers have access to the clinical data to understand the genetics and proteomics of the diseased tissue. This technology could be a landmark in personalized medicine, which will provide storage for clinical and genetic data in electronic health records (EHRs). In this paper, we explore the computational and ethical challenges that emanate from the intersection of bioinformatics and healthcare informatics research. We describe the current situation of the EHR and its capabilities to store clinical and genetic data and then discuss the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Finally, we posit that the synergy obtained from the collaborative efforts between the genomics, clinical, and healthcare disciplines has potential to enhance and promote faster and more advanced breakthroughs in healthcare.