Parents of children with Down syndrome reflect on their postnatal diagnoses, 2003-2022

A 2003 survey revealed the scope of mothers' dissatisfaction with their postnatal support following a diagnosis of Down syndrome (DS). Substantial proportions of mothers reported that providers conveyed diagnoses with pity, emphasized negative aspects of DS, and neglected to provide adequate materials explaining DS. This study follows up on the 2003 survey by assessing whether parents' experiences have improved. Four DS nonprofit organizations, which participated in the original study, distributed a mixed-methods survey to families who have had children with DS between 2003 and 2022. Quantitative analysis assessed correlations among responses and differences between the 2003 and 2022 survey groups. Open-ended responses were qualitatively analyzed. Compared to the 2003 findings, parents' perceptions of their postnatal care have not improved (N = 89). Parents are increasingly likely to report that their providers pitied them, omitted positive aspects of DS, and provided insufficient materials describing DS. Substantial proportions of parents reported fear (77%) and anxiety (79%), only 24% described receiving adequate explanatory materials, and parents were 45% likelier to report that physicians discussed negative aspects of DS than positive aspects. Qualitatively, substantial numbers of parents recounted insensitive conduct by providers. These results suggest that despite interventions, parents' experiences of postnatal diagnoses of DS have not improved over time. Certain provider behaviors-such as describing positive aspects of DS and providing comprehensive explanatory materials-can reduce fear and anxiety, pointing to directions for reform.

Views of parents of children with Down syndrome on Alzheimer's disease vaccination

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) experience increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Recent studies suggest that a vaccine against AD may be forthcoming. Parental buy-in is critical to the success of any intervention in this population, as adults with DS often rely on familial support. This study aims to characterize parents' perceptions of a hypothetical vaccine to prevent AD in individuals with DS. A mixed-methods, anonymous survey was distributed via social media. Participants were asked about their experiences with DS and reactions to proposed interventions. Open-ended responses were thematically analyzed using NVivo 12. Of 1,093 surveys initiated, 532 were completed. Of the parents sampled (N = 532), a small majority (54.3%), supported the proposed AD vaccine. All expressed the need for extensive pre-enrollment education and minimal risk. For many, limited research and long-term sequelae were concerns.

Never "totally prepared": Support groups on helping families prepare for a child with a genetic condition

A rapid increase in the reach and breadth of prenatal genetic screening and testing has led to an expanding need for prenatal support of families receiving this genetic information. As part of a larger study investigating prenatal preparation for a child with a genetic condition, we interviewed representatives of patient advocacy groups (PAGs) who support parents post-diagnosis. Groups supporting families with Down syndrome were often local or regional, while other groups were often national or international in scope. Groups varied in their willingness or ability to support families prior to making a pregnancy continuation decision, and participants reflected on ways they addressed these needs with individual counseling and referrals, if needed. Participants described supporting parents with information about conditions and a range of lived experiences for families, while referring families to healthcare professionals for technical questions and additional medical needs. PAGs also prioritized connecting parents experiencing a new diagnosis with other families for peer support and community-building, both in person and on social media. Participants discussed limitations, such as a lack of racially-concordant support, ability to offer resources in languages other than English, and a lack of funding to meet the expressed needs of families post-diagnosis. Overall, participants emphasized that the parenting experience of each child is unique, irrespective of a genetic diagnosis, an experience for which parents can never be "totally prepared."

Prenatal genetics in a post-Roe United States

The Supreme Court removed a federal right to abortion access in June 2022. This returned the legality of abortion to each of the 50 states. This will have a profound impact on the provision of prenatal care in general and prenatal genetic screening and testing.

Is preparation a good reason for prenatal genetic testing? Ethical and critical questions

As prenatal genetic testing technologies have become both easier and more accessible, women are increasingly choosing prenatal genetic testing for a reason that is largely unexamined in the clinical literature: preparation. This reasoning, offered not only from pregnant women but frequently from testing laboratories and health care providers, reflects long-held assumptions that prenatal genetic results-properly delivered and followed with information, clinical surveillance, and/or social supports-prepare families for a child with a genetic condition, and even improve health and social outcomes for children and families. But these assumptions remain unexamined, since there are no clear definitions or recommendations for prenatal preparation. Preparation may refer to several overlapping ways in which prenatal information may change parents' approach to the rest of the pregnancy, including: (a) clinical activities, including surveillance, interventions, and delivery planning; (b) social and informational support, such as interacting with patient support groups and gathering information about quality of life; and (c) psychological "coping" or adjustments to the reality of raising a child with a genetic condition. These meanings and activities intersect and influence one another and form a foundation for postnatal family adaptation, but they are rarely parsed out in studies examining the impact of prenatal diagnosis. Based on previous work delineating conceptual models as middle terms between theory and reality, we are building a conceptual model that incorporates an empirical understanding of meanings and actions encompassed by prenatal preparation. Comparing diverse families' expectations with the resources they are offered can identify (mis)matches between priorities and approaches.

Attitudes Toward Hypothetical Uses of Gene-Editing Technologies in Parents of People with Autosomal Aneuploidies

Researchers are exploring the use of gene-editing technologies to prevent and/or treat genetic conditions in humans. Stakeholder views, including those of patient and family populations, are important in the ongoing bioethical discussion. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with parents of people with trisomy 21 (T21; N = 10), trisomy 18 (T18; N = 8), and trisomy 13 (T13; N = 9)-conditions not previously studied in regard to attitudes toward hypothetical gene editing. While many discussions focus on the morality of gene editing, parents in our study focused on quality of life and concerns about changing their children's identity. All participants prioritized ameliorating life-threatening health issues when those were present; many also emphasized increasing their children's communication and cognitive ability. These results suggest that patient populations with the lived experience of genetic conditions have unique concerns that may differ from broader discourse.

Pregnant Women in Trials of Covid-19: A Critical Time to Consider Ethical Frameworks of Inclusion in Clinical Trials

Ethical issues abound during this unprecedented international public health crisis of Covid-19. While the trade-off between societal and individual interests that occurs at the intersection of public health ethics and clinical ethics affects all populations, this calculus has particular relevance for pregnant women and the question of when they will have access to new Covid-19 therapies and vaccines. Pregnant women are a "scientifically complex" population whose inclusion in clinical research must be done with consideration of the unique state of pregnancy. Yet research on the impact of Covid-19 on pregnant women is lagging. In a rush to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is crucial that the interests of pregnant women be prioritized to enable them to make autonomous, informed decisions about participating in clinical trials. The global pandemic calls for a revisiting of frameworks for the inclusion of pregnant women in research, as these women have an important stake in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19.

Evaluating the Risks and Benefits of Genetic and Pharmacologic Interventions for Down Syndrome: Views of Parents

Researchers are investigating new technologies to mitigate or prevent symptoms of Down syndrome (DS), including chromosome silencing and pharmacotherapy. We surveyed parents of individuals with DS to assess their opinions on two hypothetical scenarios describing prenatal chromosome silencing and pediatric pharmacological intervention to improve neurocognition in children with DS. Although a slim majority of participants supported the availability of both therapies, respondent support was contingent on the risks presented, including the risk of miscarriage in the prenatal intervention and the impact of pharmaceuticals on their children's personality. Many parents expressed ambivalence, articulating a desire to improve their children's quality of life but requiring more safety and efficacy research before agreeing to a genetic or pharmacological intervention.

Prioritizing Women's Health in Germline Editing Research

Although women are inextricably involved in the study of germline editing, their interests have not been significantly represented in debates about the evolution of genome editing technology. Discussions have taken place about effects of germline editing on women as parents and members of families, but key discussions about women's health and well-being as patients and subjects are lacking. This neglect is due in part to restrictions on uterine transfer of modified human embryos, a boundary that has now been crossed. As a result, only scant discussion has taken place about safeguards needed to ensure that women who participate in germline modification research are not exposed to disproportionate risk in exchange for benefits they might expect for future offspring. This omission sets the stage for serious ethical implications for women and their families.

Adherence of cell-free DNA noninvasive prenatal screens to ACMG recommendations

PURPOSE

Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal aneuploidy via cell-free DNA has been commercially available in the United States since 2011. In 2016, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) issued a position statement with specific recommendations for testing laboratories. We sought to evaluate adherence to these recommendations.

METHODS

We focused on commercial laboratories performing NIPS testing in the United States as of 1 January 2018. Sample laboratory reports and other materials were scored for compliance with ACMG recommendations. Variables scored for common and sex chromosome aneuploidy detection included detection rate, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and fetal fraction. Labs that performed analysis of copy-number variants and results for aneuploidies other than those commonly reported were identified. Available patient education materials were similarly evaluated.

RESULTS

Nine of 10 companies reported fetal fraction in their reports, and 8 of 10 did not offer screening for autosomal aneuploidies beyond trisomy 13, 18, and 21. There was inconsistency in the application and reporting of other measures recommended by ACMG.

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratories varied in the degree to which they met ACMG position statement recommendations. No company adhered to all laboratory guidance.

The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues

Gene-editing techniques have progressed rapidly in the past 5 years. There are already ongoing human somatic gene-editing clinical trials for multiple diseases. And there has been one purported scenario of human germline gene editing in late 2018. In this paper, we will review the current state of the technology, discuss the ethical and social issues that surround the various forms of gene editing, as well as review emerging stakeholder data from professionals, the ‘general public’ and individuals and families dealing with genetic diseases potentially treatable by gene editing.

Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global Context

Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA, which analyzes placental DNA circulating in maternal blood to provide information about fetal chromosomal disorders early in pregnancy and without risk to the fetus, has been hailed as a potential "paradigm shift" in prenatal genetic screening. Commercial provision of cell-free DNA screening has contributed to a rapid expansion of the tests included in the screening panels. The tests can include screening for sex chromosome anomalies, rare subchromosomal microdeletions and aneuploidies, and most recently, the entire fetal genome. The benefits of this screening tool are generally framed, by both providers and commercial laboratories, as enhancing reproductive autonomy and choice by providing an earlier, simpler, and more accurate screening while potentially reducing the need for invasive follow-up testing. The majority of the literature has explored these issues empirically or conceptually from a European or North American vantage point, one that assumes normative priorities such as individual reproductive autonomy and the clinical availability of maternal health care or prenatal screening programs within which cell-free DNA screening is offered. While its implementation has raised both challenges and opportunities, very little is known about real-world experiences and the implications of the rapid introduction of cell-free DNA screening outside of North America and Europe, especially in low- and middle-income countries. To begin addressing this gap in knowledge, we organized a four-day international workshop to explore the ethical, legal, social, economic, clinical, and practical implications of the global expansion of cell-free DNA screening. We describe eight key insights that arose from the workshop.

Walking Responses of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to Its Aggregation Pheromone and Odors of Wheat Infestations

The red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), is a worldwide pest of stored grains. Using "Y"-tube olfactometry we studied the response of T. castaneum to odors from simulated wheat infestations containing conspecifics, and infestations containing the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), and the granary weevil Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Tribolium castaneum larvae were significantly attracted to odors from all three test species. Tribolium castaneum adults were attracted to grains infested by R. dominica and flour infested by T. castaneum but repelled from grains infested by S. granarius. Further behavioral analysis with pheromones showed that T. castaneum were significantly attracted to their aggregation pheromone, dimethyldecanal (DMD), but not to the R. dominica aggregation pheromone, a mixture of dominicalure 1 and 2. Female T. castaneum adults were attracted to ∼50-fold less DMD than larvae and 100-fold less than male adults, suggesting they are more sensitive to DMD. This study improves our understanding of T. castaneum behaviors to infested grain volatile compounds and pheromones, and may help develop new control methods for grain pest species.

Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues

Purpose of Review

In 2011, screening platforms became available in the US that detect and analyze fragments of cell-free placental DNA (cfDNA) in maternal blood serum. Marketed as noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT), cfDNA screening is more accurate than previously available serum screening tests for certain aneuploidies. The combination of a noninvasive procedure, high specificity and sensitivity, and lower false positive rates for some aneuploidies (most notably Down's syndrome) has led to broad clinician and patient adoption. New ethical, legal, and social issues arise from the increased use and expanded implementation of cfDNA in pregnancy.

Recent Findings

Recently, several professional associations have amended their guidelines on cfDNA, removing language recommending its use in only "high-risk" pregnancies in favor of making cfDNA screening an available option for women with "low-risk" pregnancies as well. At the same time, commercial cfDNA screening laboratories continue to expand the range of available test panels. As a result, the future of prenatal screening will likely include a broader range of genetic tests in a wider range of patients.

Summary

This article addresses the ethical, legal, and social issues related to the shift in guidance and expanded use of cfDNA in pregnant women, including concerns regarding routinized testing, an unmet and increasing demand for genetic counseling services, social and economic disparities in access, impact on groups living with disabling conditions, and provider liability.

Informed decision-making about prenatal cfDNA screening: An assessment of written materials

OBJECTIVES

The introduction of prenatal cfDNA screening for fetal aneuploidy and other genetic conditions has exacerbated concerns about informed decision-making in clinical prenatal testing. To assess the information provided to patients to facilitate decisions about cfDNA screening, we collected written patient education and consent documents created by laboratories and clinics.

METHODS

Informed consent documents (IC) were coded by two independent coders. Each IC was assessed for readability, attention to elements of informed consent, and completeness of information about the test and the screened conditions.

RESULTS

We found variance between IC produced by commercial laboratories versus those provided by local clinics or health care systems, and considerable variance among materials from all sources. "Commercial" IC were longer and written at a more difficult reading level than "non-commercial" IC, and were less likely to state explicitly that cfDNA only screens for certain conditions. About one-third of IC were combined with laboratory order forms. Though most IC recommended confirmatory testing for positive results, only about half clearly stated that results could be incorrect-including mentions of false positives or false negatives. About one-third of IC explicitly stated that cfDNA screening was optional. While nearly all IC from any source listed the conditions screened by the test, only about half of the IC included any phenotypic descriptions of these conditions. Few IC mentioned psychosocial considerations, and only one IC mentioned the availability of support groups for families of children with genetic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, we recommend that written and well-informed consent be sought before performing cfDNA screening, and we offer minimal and recommended standards for patient education and consent materials.

Impact of the increased adoption of prenatal cfDNA screening on non-profit patient advocacy organizations in the United States

The 'Stakeholder Perspectives on Noninvasive Prenatal Genetic Screening' Symposium was held in conjunction with the 2015 annual meeting of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. During the day-long meeting, a panel of patient advocacy group (PAG) representatives discussed concerns and challenges raised by prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening, which has resulted in larger demands upon PAGs from concerned patients receiving prenatal cfDNA screening results. Prominent concerns included confusion about the accuracy of cfDNA screening and a lack of patient education resources about genetic conditions included in cfDNA screens. Some of the challenges faced by PAGs included funding limitations, lack of consistently implemented standards of care and oversight, diverse perspectives among PAGs and questions about neutrality, and lack of access to training and genetic counselors. PAG representatives also put forward suggestions for addressing these challenges, including improving educational and PAG funding and increasing collaboration between PAGs and the medical community. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

"I think we've got too many tests!": Prenatal providers' reflections on ethical and clinical challenges in the practice integration of cell-free DNA screening

BACKGROUND

The recent introduction of cell-free DNA-based non-invasive prenatal screening (cfDNA screening) into clinical practice was expected to revolutionize prenatal testing. cfDNA screening for fetal aneuploidy has demonstrated higher test sensitivity and specificity for some conditions than conventional serum screening and can be conducted early in the pregnancy. However, it is not clear whether and how clinical practices are assimilating this new type of testing into their informed consent and counselling processes. Since the introduction of cfDNA screening into practice in 2011, the uptake and scope have increased dramatically. Prenatal care providers are under pressure to stay up to date with rapidly changing cfDNA screening panels, manage increasing patient demands, and keep up with changing test costs, all while attempting to use the technology responsibly and ethically. While clinical literature on cfDNA screening has shown benefits for specific patient populations, it has also identified significant misunderstandings among providers and patients alike about the power of the technology. The unique features of cfDNA screening, in comparison to established prenatal testing technologies, have implications for informed decision-making and genetic counselling that must be addressed to ensure ethical practice.

OBJECTIVES

This study explored the experiences of prenatal care providers at the forefront of non-invasive genetic screening in the United States to understand how this testing changes the practice of prenatal medicine. We aimed to learn how the experience of providing and offering this testing differs from established prenatal testing methodologies. These differences may necessitate changes to patient education and consent procedures to maintain ethical practice.

METHODS

We used the online American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Physician Directory to identify a systematic sample of five prenatal care providers in each U.S. state and the District of Columbia. Beginning with the lowest zip code in each state, we took every fifth name from the directory, excluding providers who were retired, did not currently practice in the state in which they were listed, or were not involved in a prenatal specialty. After repeating this step twice and sending a total of 461 invitations, 37 providers expressed interest in participating, and we completed telephone interviews with 21 providers (4.6%). We developed a semi-structured interview guide including questions about providers' use of and attitudes toward cfDNA screening. A single interviewer conducted and audio-recorded all interviews by telephone, and the interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes each. We collaboratively developed a codebook through an iterative process of transcript review and code application, and a primary coder coded all transcripts.

RESULTS

Prenatal care providers have varying perspectives on the advantages of cfDNA screening and express a range of concerns regarding the implementation of cfDNA screening in practice. While providers agreed on several advantages of cfDNA, including increased accuracy, earlier return of results, and decreased risk of complications, many expressed concern that there is not enough time to adequately counsel and educate patients on their prenatal screening and testing options. Providers also agreed that demand for cfDNA screening has increased and expressed a desire for more information from professional societies, labs, and publications. Providers disagreed about the healthcare implications and future of cfDNA screening. Some providers anticipated that cfDNA screening would decrease healthcare costs when implemented widely and expressed optimism for expanded cfDNA screening panels. Others were concerned that cfDNA screening would increase costs over time and questioned whether the expansion to include microdeletions could be done ethically.

CONCLUSIONS

The perspectives and experiences of the providers in this study allow insight into the clinical benefit, burden on prenatal practice, and potential future of cfDNA screening in clinical practice. Given the likelihood that the scope and uptake of cfDNA screening will continue to increase, it is essential to consider how these changes will affect frontline prenatal care providers and, in turn, patients. Providers' requests for additional guidance and data as well as their concerns with the lack of time available to explain screening and testing options indicate significant potential issues with patient care. It is important to ensure that the clinical integration of cfDNA screening is managed responsibly and ethically before it expands further, exacerbating pre-existing issues. As prenatal screening evolves, so should informed consent and the resources available to women making decisions. The field must take steps to maximize the advantages of cfDNA screening and responsibly manage its ethical issues.

"This lifetime commitment": Public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening

Recently, new noninvasive prenatal genetic screening technologies for Down syndrome and other genetic conditions have become commercially available. Unique characteristics of these screening tests have reignited long-standing concerns about prenatal testing for intellectual and developmental disabilities. We conducted a web-based survey of a sample of the US public to examine how attitudes towards disability inform views of prenatal testing in the context of these rapidly advancing prenatal genetic screening technologies. Regardless of opinion toward disability, the majority of respondents supported both the availability of screening and the decision to continue a pregnancy positive for aneuploidy. Individuals rationalized their support with various conceptions of disability; complications of the expressivist argument and other concerns from the disability literature were manifested in many responses analyzed.

Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections

The rapid clinical implementation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening, a non-invasive method of prenatal genetic screening, has outpaced research on its social and ethical implications. This study is the first to compare the ethical and practical views of Spanish- and English-speaking pregnant women in the United States about cfDNA screening. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with diverse Spanish- and English-speaking women who had received prenatal care at a large academic medical center. Of the 24 interviewees, ten were Latinas who were interviewed in Spanish; English-language interviews were conducted with seven non-Hispanic Asian and seven non-Hispanic White women. Participants held positive opinions concerning the accuracy of cfDNA screening and often noted that it would enhance preparedness. Participants also expressed concerns about the possibility of inaccurate results and the potentially negative effects of cfDNA screening on the experience of pregnancy. Differences emerged between Spanish and English speakers in their portrayals of their relationships with prenatal health care providers, the extent to which they questioned providers' advice, their ethical concerns, and their informational needs. We emphasize the importance of customizing prenatal test counseling to the needs of the individual patient, providing educationally appropriate counseling and literature, and mitigating potential language barriers.

"Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States

BACKGROUND

The recent availability of new non-invasive prenatal genetic tests for fetal aneuploidy has raised questions concerning whether and how these new tests will be integrated into prenatal medical care. Among the many factors to be considered are public understandings and preferences about prenatal testing mechanisms and the prospect of fetal aneuploidy.

METHODS

To address these issues, we conducted a nation-wide mixed-method survey of 2,960 adults in the United States to explore justifications for choices among prenatal testing mechanisms. Open responses were qualitatively coded and grouped by theme.

RESULTS

Respondents cited accuracy, followed by cost, as the most significant aspects of prenatal testing. Acceptance of testing was predicated on differing valuations of knowledge and on personal and religious beliefs. Trust in the medical establishment, attitudes towards risk, and beliefs about health and illness were also considered relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a significant portion of the sample population valued the additional accuracy provided by the new non-invasive tests, they nevertheless expressed concerns over high costs. Furthermore, participants continued to express reservations about the value of prenatal genetic information per se, regardless of how it was obtained.

Flexible positions, managed hopes: the promissory bioeconomy of a whole genome sequencing cancer study

Genomic research has rapidly expanded its scope and ambition over the past decade, promoted by both public and private sectors as having the potential to revolutionize clinical medicine. This promissory bioeconomy of genomic research and technology is generated by, and in turn generates, the hopes and expectations shared by investors, researchers and clinicians, patients, and the general public alike. Examinations of such bioeconomies have often focused on the public discourse, media representations, and capital investments that fuel these "regimes of hope," but also crucial are the more intimate contexts of small-scale medical research, and the private hopes, dreams, and disappointments of those involved. Here we examine one local site of production in a university-based clinical research project that sought to identify novel cancer predisposition genes through whole genome sequencing in individuals at high risk for cancer. In-depth interviews with 24 adults who donated samples to the study revealed an ability to shift flexibly between positioning themselves as research participants on the one hand, and as patients or as family members of patients, on the other. Similarly, interviews with members of the research team highlighted the dual nature of their positions as researchers and as clinicians. For both parties, this dual positioning shaped their investment in the project and valuing of its possible outcomes. In their narratives, all parties shifted between these different relational positions as they managed hopes and expectations for the research project. We suggest that this flexibility facilitated study implementation and participation in the face of potential and probable disappointment on one or more fronts, and acted as a key element in the resilience of this local promissory bioeconomy. We conclude that these multiple dimensions of relationality and positionality are inherent and essential in the creation of any complex economy, "bio" or otherwise.

The meaning of genetic research results: reflections from individuals with and without a known genetic disorder

In the debate about whether to return individual genetic results to research participants, consideration of the nature of results has taken precedence over contextual factors associated with different study designs and populations. We conducted in-depth interviews with 24 individuals who participated in a genotype-driven study of cystic fibrosis: 9 of the individuals had cystic fibrosis, 15 had participated as healthy volunteers, and all had gene variants of interest to the researchers. These interviews revealed that the two groups had different ideas about the meaningfulness of genetic results. Our findings point to the importance of understanding research context, such as participants' relationship with the researcher and whether they have the disease condition under study, when considering whether to return individual results.

Research participants' perspectives on genotype-driven research recruitment

Genotype-driven recruitment is a potentially powerful approach for studying human genetic variation but presents ethical challenges. We conducted in-depth interviews with research participants in six studies where such recruitment occurred. Nearly all responded favorably to the acceptability of recontact for research recruitment, and genotype-driven recruitment was viewed as a positive sign of scientific advancement. Reactions to questions about the disclosure of individual genetic research results varied. Common themes included explaining the purpose of recontact, informing decisions about further participation, reciprocity, "information is valuable," and the possibility of benefit, as well as concerns about undue distress and misunderstanding. Our findings suggest contact about additional research may be least concerning if it involves a known element (e.g., trusted researchers). Also, for genotype-driven recruitment, it may be appropriate to set a lower bar for disclosure of individual results than the clinical utility threshold recommended more generally.

"If I could in a small way help": motivations for and beliefs about sample donation for genetic research

Human genome research depends upon participants who donate genetic samples, but few studies have explored in depth the motivations of genetic research donors. This mixed methods study examines telephone interviews with 752 sample donors in a U.S. genetic epidemiology study investigating colorectal cancer. Quantitative and qualitative results indicate that most participants wanted to help society, and that many also wanted information about their own health, even though such information was not promised. Qualitative analysis reveals that donors believed their samples contributed to a scientific "common good"; imagined samples as information rather than tissues; and often blurred distinctions between research and diagnostic testing of samples. Differences between African American and White perspectives were distinct from educational and other possible explanatory factors.

What research ethics should learn from genomics and society research: lessons from the ELSI Congress of 2011

Research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of human genomics has devoted significant attention to the research ethics issues that arise from genomic science as it moves through the translational process. Given the prominence of these issues in today's debates over the state of research ethics overall, these studies are well positioned to contribute important data, contextual considerations, and policy arguments to the wider research ethics community's deliberations, and ultimately to develop a research ethics that can help guide biomedicine's future. In this essay, we illustrate this thesis through an analytic summary of the research presented at the 2011 ELSI Congress, an international meeting of genomics and society researchers. We identify three pivotal factors currently shaping genomic research, its clinical translation, and its societal implications: (1) the increasingly blurred boundary between research and treatment; (2) uncertainty--that is, the indefinite, indeterminate, and incomplete nature of much genomic information and the challenges that arise from making meaning and use of it; and (3) the role of negotiations between multiple scientific and non-scientific stakeholders in setting the priorities for and direction of biomedical research, as it is increasingly conducted "in the public square."

Narrating disability, narrating religious practice: reconciliation and fragile X syndrome

This article examines the place of religion in the narratives of mothers of children with fragile X syndrome. In semistructured interviews, a majority of women combined narratives of religious practice with illness narratives, interpreting their children's disabilities within a religious framework. Informed by Arthur Frank's (1995) concept of "wounded storytellers," the authors articulate a reconciliation narrative that mothers commonly used to describe their transition from viewing disability as a burden or challenge to seeing it as a blessing, or as a part of God's purpose or plan for their lives. The authors discuss the significance of narrative for better understanding religious perspectives on disability and conclude with the implications of these findings for practitioners and future research.

A controlled trial of dothiepin and placebo in treating benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms

BACKGROUND

The possibility that treatment with tricyclic antidepressants, in the form of dothiepin, might attenuate benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms was investigated in a double-blind trial.

METHOD

Eighty-seven non-depressed psychiatric out-patients with putative normal dose benzodiazepine dependence had their benzodiazepines reduced in stepwise amounts of 20% of the original dose for eight weeks. The patients were randomised to receive dothiepin (with dosage increasing to 150 mg/day) or placebo as an aid to withdrawal before benzodiazepine reduction and these drugs were taken for four further weeks before being stopped.

RESULTS

Fewer patients entered and completed the study than expected and a Type II error was possible in the results. Although there was some evidence of withdrawal symptoms being less marked in those patients allocated to dothiepin this was independent of any antidepressant effect as depression scores were lower in the placebo group in the early phase of withdrawal (P < 0.01). Of those completing the study, greater satisfaction (P = 0.03) was recorded by those who had received dothiepin; no other differences reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Dothiepin (and by implication other tricyclic antidepressants) might have some value in reducing benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms but does not aid drug withdrawal.

Hand and wrist function after external fixation of unstable distal radial fractures

Twenty-eight patients with 31 fractures of the distal radius were treated by closed external fixation. The complication rate for this series was 50%. Anatomic results were acceptable but hand function at final review was disappointing, particularly in the measurement of grip strength and the patient's ability to perform the activities of daily living. There was a highly significant correlation between complications and poor functional outcome. Although external fixation can achieve restoration of normal anatomy, functional outcome may be poor because of the severity of the associated soft tissue injury.