Demographic and prosocial intrapersonal characteristics of biobank participants and refusers: the findings of a survey in the Netherlands

Research in genetics relies heavily on voluntary contributions of personal data. We aimed to acquire insights into the differences between participants and refusers of participation in a Dutch population-based biobank. Accordingly, we assessed the demographic and prosocial intrapersonal characteristics of respondents who participated (n = 2615) or refused to participate (n = 404) in the Lifelines biobank and databank. Our results indicated that health-related values critically influence participation decisions. The participation threshold for Lifelines was determined by an absence of health-related values and of trust in government. Therefore, considering these factors in communication and recruitment strategies could enhance participation in biomedical research. No indications were found of a stronger general prosociality of participants or their trust in researchers beyond the context of biobanking. This emphasizes the contextual understanding of the decision of participation in biobanking. Our findings may contribute to improving recruitment strategies by incorporating relevant values and/or highlighting prosocial benefits. Moreover, they foreground the need to address trust issues in collaborations between data repositories and commercial companies. Future research should explore how prosocial intrapersonal characteristics drive participation and withdrawal decisions and relate to contextual attributes.

What Is the Psychosocial Impact of Providing Genetic and Genomic Health Information to Individuals? An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Optimistic predictions that genetic and genomic testing will provide health benefits have been tempered by the concern that individuals who receive their results may experience negative psychosocial outcomes. This potential ethical and clinical concern has prompted extensive conversations between policy-makers, health researchers, ethicists, and the general public. Fortunately, the psychosocial consequences of such testing are subject to empirical investigation, and over the past quarter century, research that clarifies some of the types, likelihood, and severity of potential harms from learning the results of the testing has accumulated. I aim to provide an overview of the findings of this research by looking at selected systematic reviews. This will convey the gist of the literature's quality and coverage, reveal gaps in existing knowledge, and highlight promising areas for future scholarship.

Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review

The majority of biobank policies and consent forms do not address post-mortem use of data for medical research, thus causing uncertainty after research participants' death. This systematic review identifies studies examining stakeholders' perspectives on this issue. We conducted a search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. Findings were categorised in two themes: (1) views on the use of data for medical research after participants' death, and (2) perspectives regarding the post-mortem return of individual genetic research results. An important subtheme was the appropriate authority and degree of control over posthumous use of data. The sixteen included studies all focused on genetic data and used quantitative and qualitative methods to survey perspectives of research participants, family members, researchers and Institutional Review Board members. Acceptability of post-mortem use of data for medical research was high among research participants and their relatives. Most stakeholders thought participants should be informed about post-mortem research uses during initial consent. Between lay persons and professionals, disagreement exists about whether relatives should receive actionable genetic findings, and whether the deceased's previous preferences can be overridden. We conclude that regulations and ethical guidance should leave room for post-mortem use of personal data for research, provided that informed consent procedures are transparent on this issue, including the return of individual research findings to relatives. Future research is needed to explore underlying causes for differences in views, as well as ethical and legal issues on the appropriate level of control by deceased research participants (while alive) and their relatives.

Attitudes of publics who are unwilling to donate DNA data for research

With the use of genetic technology, researchers have the potential to inform medical diagnoses and treatment in actionable ways. Accurate variant interpretation is a necessary condition for the utility of genetic technology to unfold. This relies on the ability to access large genomic datasets so that comparisons can be made between variants of interest. This can only be successful if DNA and medical data are donated by large numbers of people to 'research', including clinical, non-profit and for-profit research initiatives, in order to be accessed by scientists and clinicians worldwide. The objective of the 'Your DNA, Your Say' global survey is to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate and concerns regarding the donation of one's personal data for use by others. Using a representative sample of 8967 English-speaking publics from the UK, the USA, Canada and Australia, we explore the characteristics of people who are unwilling (n = 1426) to donate their DNA and medical information, together with an exploration of their reasons. Understanding this perspective is important for making sense of the interaction between science and society. It also helps to focus engagement initiatives on the issues of concern to some publics.

A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States

Concerns about genetic privacy affect individuals' willingness to accept genetic testing in clinical care and to participate in genomics research. To learn what is already known about these views, we conducted a systematic review, which ultimately analyzed 53 studies involving the perspectives of 47,974 participants on real or hypothetical privacy issues related to human genetic data. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and Sociological Abstracts. Three investigators independently screened studies against predetermined criteria and assessed risk of bias. The picture of genetic privacy that emerges from this systematic literature review is complex and riddled with gaps. When asked specifically "are you worried about genetic privacy," the general public, patients, and professionals frequently said yes. In many cases, however, that question was posed poorly or only in the most general terms. While many participants expressed concern that genomic and medical information would be revealed to others, respondents frequently seemed to conflate privacy, confidentiality, control, and security. People varied widely in how much control they wanted over the use of data. They were more concerned about use by employers, insurers, and the government than they were about researchers and commercial entities. In addition, people are often willing to give up some privacy to obtain other goods. Importantly, little attention was paid to understanding the factors-sociocultural, relational, and media-that influence people's opinions and decisions. Future investigations should explore in greater depth which concerns about genetic privacy are most salient to people and the social forces and contexts that influence those perceptions. It is also critical to identify the social practices that will make the collection and use of these data more trustworthy for participants as well as to identify the circumstances that lead people to set aside worries and decide to participate in research.

Genetic Privacy, Disease Prevention, and the Principle of Rescue

Suppose that you have deeply personal information that you do not want to share. Further suppose that this information could help others, perhaps even saving their lives. Should you reveal the information or keep it secret? With the increasing prevalence of genetic testing, more and more people are finding themselves in this situation. Although a patient's genetic results are potentially relevant to all her biological family members, her first-degree relatives-parents, children, and full siblings-are most likely to be affected. This is especially true for genetic mutations-like those in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes-that are associated with a dramatically increased risk of disease. Fortunately, people are usually willing to share results with their at-risk relatives. Occasionally, however, a patient refuses to disclose her findings to anyone outside her clinical team. Ethicists have written little on patients' moral duties to their at-risk relatives. Moreover, the few accounts that have been advanced are problematic. Some unnecessarily expose patients' genetic information to relatives who are unlikely to benefit from it, and others fail to ensure that patients' most vulnerable relatives are informed of their genetic risks. Patients' duty to warn can be defended in a way that avoids these problems. I argue that the duty to share one's genetic results is grounded in the principle of rescue-the idea that one ought to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the risk of harm to another person when the expected harm is serious and the cost or risk to oneself is sufficiently moderate. When these two criteria are satisfied, a patient will most likely have a duty to warn.

Paternity testing under the cloak of recreational genetics

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) internet companies are selling widely advertised and highly popular genetic ancestry tests to the broad public. These tests are often classified as falling within the scope of so-called 'recreational genetics', but little is known about the impact of using these services. In this study, a particular focus is whether minors (and under what conditions) should be able to participate in the use of these DTC tests. Current ancestry tests are easily able to reveal whether participants are related and can, therefore, also reveal misattributed paternity, with implications for the minors and adults involved in the testing. We analysed the publicly available privacy policies and terms of services of 43 DTC genetic ancestry companies to assess whether minors are able to participate in testing DTC genetic ancestry, and also whether and how companies ethically account for the potential of paternity inference. Our results indicated that the majority of DTC genetic ancestry testing companies do not specifically address whether minors are able to participate in testing. Furthermore, the majority of the policies and terms of services fail to mention the vulnerability of minors and family members in receiving unexpected information, in particular, in relation to (misattributed) paternity. Therefore, recreational genetics carries both the risk of unintentionally revealing misidentified paternity, and also the risk that fathers will deliberately use these services to test their children's paternity without revealing their intentions to the mother or any other third party.

Privacy and Equality in Diagnostic Genetic Testing

This study aimed to determine the extent to which the principles of privacy and equality were observed during diagnostic genetic testing according to views held by patients or child patients' parents (n = 106) and by staff (n = 162) from three Finnish university hospitals. The data were collected through a structured questionnaire and analysed using the SAS 8.1 statistical software. In general, the two principles were observed relatively satisfactorily in clinical practice. According to patients/parents, equality in the post-analytic phase and, according to staff, privacy in the pre-analytic phase, involved the greatest ethical problems. The two groups differed in their views concerning pre-analytic privacy. Although there were no major problems regarding the two principles, the differences between the testing phases require further clarification. To enhance privacy protection and equality, professionals need to be given more genetics/ethics training, and patients individual counselling by genetics units staff, giving more consideration to patients' world-view, the purpose of the test and the test result.

Regulating biobanking with children's tissue: a legal analysis and the experts' view

Many current paediatric studies concern relationships between genes and environment and discuss aetiology, treatment and prevention of Mendelian and multifactorial diseases. Many of these studies depend on collection and long-term storage of data and biological material from affected children in biobanks. Stored material is a source of personal information of the donor and his family and could be used in an undesirable context, potentially leading to discrimination and interfering with a child's right to an open future. Here, we address the normative framework regarding biobanking with residual tissue of children, protecting the privacy interests of young biobank donors (0-12 years). We analyse relevant legal documents concerning storage and use of children's material for research purposes. We explore the views of 17 Dutch experts involved in paediatric biobank research and focus on informed consent for donation of leftover tissue as well as disclosure of individual research findings resulting from biobank research. The results of this analysis show that experts have no clear consensus about the appropriate rules for storage of and research with children's material in biobanks. Development of a framework that provides a fair balance between fundamental paediatric research and privacy protection is necessary.

Is there a duty to share genetic information?

A number of prominent bioethicists, such as Parker, Lucassen and Knoppers, have called for the adoption of a system in which by default genetic information is shared among family members. This paper suggests that a main reason given in support of this call to share genetic information among family members is the idea that genetic information is essentially familial in nature. On examining this "familial nature of genetics" argument, the paper shows that most genetic information is only shared in a weaker way among family members and does not necessarily lead to the actual manifestation of particular diseases. The upshot is that the idea that genetic information is familial in nature does not provide sufficient ground for moving towards a system in which by default genetic information is shared among family members.

Patient autonomy and relatives' right to know genetic information

One of the most difficult issues doctors face is a conflict between their professional duties. Such a conflict may arise when doctors know that information has implications not only for patients but also for family members but their duty of confidentiality prevents them from disclosing it. A comparative analysis of English and Israeli medical law reveals that the doctors' duty is based on two principles: a liberal perception of patient autonomy and an overriding utilitarian principle of prevention of harm. However, socio-medical research indicates that these principles do not entirely reflect the views of patients and doctors and are too narrow to deal with the complex situations in practice. Thus, it is argued that the doctor's legal duty of confidentiality should be reconsidered and qualified when it concerns the family. It is suggested that if medical law seeks to recognize the various interests family members have in genetic information then we should consider a different approach, founded on a relational interpretation of autonomy and communitarian notions of solidarity and moral responsibility. This approach perceives confidentiality and privacy as embracing the family unit, based on the view that close relatives are not entirely outside the private sphere of the individual but rather are integral to his or her identity. Thus, to the utilitarian mechanism available in medical law this approach adds a social criterion: The effect any decision (to disclose or not to disclose) will have on the familial relationship and on the dynamics of the particular family. This will provide a more flexible and workable alternative for doctors to resolve familial tensions over access to genetic information.

Israeli nurses and genetic information disclosure

The debate continues about whether people have a duty to pass on the positive results of their genetic tests to relatives who are at risk from the same disease, and, should they refuse, whether physicians and genetic counselors then have the duty to do so. To date, the role and views of nurses in this debate have not been investigated. In our study, a sample of Israeli nurses, untrained in genetics, were asked for their theoretical opinions and what practical steps they would take in the case of patients' refusal to disclose. The nurses were very sure that patients should inform their families but were equally sure that nurses must respect their decision to disclose or not. Few said they would take practical steps to disclose information if the patient objected. The authors believe that the most useful and appropriate role for nurses in this field is in working to bring about co-operation between patients and family members.

Perceived genetic knowledge, attitudes towards genetic testing, and the relationship between these among patients with a chronic disease

OBJECTIVE

Genetics increasingly permeate everyday medicine. When patients want to make informed decisions about genetic testing, they require genetic knowledge. This study examined the genetic knowledge and attitudes of patients with chronic diseases, and the relationship between both. In addition, patients were asked about their preferred source of genetic information.

METHODS

Questionnaires were mailed to participants of a nationwide representative sample of patients with chronic diseases in the Netherlands (n = 1916).

RESULTS

The response rate was 82% (n = 1496). Perceived genetic knowledge was low, particularly among older and lower educated patients. Attitudes towards genetics were rather positive, especially among younger and higher educated patients. Some concerns were also documented, mainly about the consequences of genetic testing for employment and taking insurance. Patients who perceived to have little knowledge found it difficult to formulate an opinion about genetic testing. Higher levels of genetic knowledge were associated with a more favourable attitude towards genetics. Chronic patients prefer to receive genetic information from their GP.

CONCLUSION

Chronic patients are ill prepared when they require genetic knowledge to make decisions regarding the treatment of their disease. This seems to result from a knowledge deficiency rather than from disagreement with the genetic developments.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When chronic patients are in need of information about genetics or genetic testing, their general practitioner should provide this.

[Social and family considerations in genetic counselling]

Genetic knowledge can be viewed as an important tool in the prevention of hereditary disease. This article discusses the social issues that the link between genetics and prevention raises in cancer genetic counselling and testing. In particular, the moral dilemmas which health professionals and patients face in relation to disclosing genetic information to kin are described. The authors argue that questions about disclosing information and balancing autonomy and responsibility are not only ethical questions but biopolitical issues.

A preliminary comparison of the hopes of researchers, clinicians, and families for the future ethical use of genetic findings on schizophrenia

A written questionnaire about genetic testing was distributed to all registrants at The 2004 World Congress of Psychiatric Genetics, mailed to clinical psychiatrists obtained from a directory of clinicians practicing in New York City, and mailed to members of families who have multiple affected family members with schizophrenia. A total of 274 individuals responded (162 researchers, 64 clinicians, and 48 family members). This survey shows that the majority of family members who completed the questionnaire (83.3%) would want to be tested if a genetic test were to become available. Over half of the family members (56.2%) would want prenatal testing. Similarly, over half of the clinicians (56.3%) would recommend it, despite only 25% of the researchers reporting that it would be a future useful tool. All of the clinicians surveyed thought adoption agencies should inform families about a family history of schizophrenia, while only half of the researchers thought this should be done (51.9%). These differences in opinions between consumers, their clinicians, and researchers could be based on a lack of understanding of the amount of risk conferred to family members by reported gene variants. Providing public discussions for placing these risks in perspective should be the responsibility of researchers. Open public discussion of the ethical and social uses of the information gained from psychiatric genetic research and its limitations is encouraged.

Utility and limitations of genetic testing and information

This article introduces some of the issues involved in genetic testing and information, particularly the utility and limitations of such testing. Psychosocial and ethical issues that may arise in this area are also discussed. The aim of this article is to stimulate readers' awareness of and insight into these matters in the hope that practitioners will examine and reflect on the applicability of these to their area of practice.

From a social issue to policy: Social work's advocacy for the rights of donor conceived people to genetic origins information in the United Kingdom

This paper outlines a 22 year campaign to introduce openness into the arena of donor conception in the UK. It identifies key aspects of the development of an advocacy based approach to such work and argues that social work values and principles can prove key to identifying structural inequalities which are not necessarily based in socio-economic disadvantage. Donor conceived people may find themselves in families which enjoy material privilege but whose exposure to a legislative framework and dominant professional cultures within the treatment centres encourages secrecy around genetic origins. Social workers' experience of adoption and family work leads them to recognise the danger of such secrets within families. Turning such social issues into policy changes requires vision, strategic long term advocacy and partnership with those directly affected.

Implementation of informed consent for a cystic fibrosis newborn screening program in France: low refusal rates for optional testing

OBJECTIVES

The French Association for Neonatal Screening implemented cystic fibrosis neonatal screening (CF NBS) region by region in France, from the beginning of the year 2002 to early 2003. The program uses an immunoreactive trypsinogen/DNA testing algorithm on dried blood samples obtained at 3 days of age. Incorporation of DNA testing necessitated compliance with official regulations and French "bioethics" laws: the need for a written consent from the patient/guardian and specific circulation of the prescription, sample, and results. To fulfill these obligations, the Ethics and Genetics committee of the French Association for Neonatal Screening recommended that informed consent should be obtained for all neonates at birth by having the parents sign directly on the sampling paper. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of the educational efforts used to obtain informed consent on acceptance of CF NBS.

STUDY DESIGN

Data from the screening center in Lille, France, were analyzed to determine the rate of refusal of CF NBS in the 18 months after initiation of the informed consent process.

RESULTS

The number of refusals for CF NBS declined from 0.8% at the start of the program to 0.2% at the end of the first year of the new process for obtaining written consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to inform parents and professionals resulted in a significant decrease in the number of refusals for CF NBS.

Perspectives on use and protection of genetic information in work settings: results of a preliminary study

The societal use of genetic information raises ethical concerns, and the views of working persons regarding genetic information have received little attention. We performed an empirical project to characterize perspectives of 63 employees at two sites who expressed strong interest in learning about and protecting their personal genetic information. Genetic data were seen as more sensitive than other health data, and disclosure of genetic susceptibility was perceived as having negative consequences. This study suggests the value of exploring the perspectives of key stakeholders most directly affected by genetic applications across diverse societal settings.

A survey of the SWISS researchers on the impact of sibling privacy protections on pedigree recruitment

To understand the perceptions and attitudes about privacy safeguards in research and investigate the impact of letter-based proband-initiated contact on recruitment, we surveyed researchers in the Siblings With Ischemic Stroke Study (SWISS). All 49 actively recruiting sites provided at least 1 response, and 61% reported that potential probands were enthusiastic. Although 66% of researchers valued proband-initiated contact, only 23% said that probands viewed this strategy as important to protecting the privacy of siblings. A substantial minority of researchers (37%) said the strategy impeded enrollment, and 44% said it was overly burdensome to probands.

Public experiences, knowledge and expectations about medical genetics and the use of genetic information

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were (1) to explore public experiences, genetic knowledge, expectations of future medical genetic developments, and the attitudes towards the use of genetic information, and (2) to determine whether there are subject characteristics associated with these variables.

METHODS

Participants (n = 1,308, age > or = 25 years) of a Dutch consumer panel were sent a questionnaire, specifically designed for this study.

RESULTS

Response was 63% (817/1,308). A minority of respondents reported to know someone with a hereditary disease (34%) or to have used a genetic test (8%). Overall, 57% perceived a lack of genetic knowledge. In multivariate analyses, high self-rated knowledge, younger age, having heard of genetic testing, high educational level, female gender, having children living at home, being a health professional, and familiarity with genetic testing were positively associated with genetic knowledge. Future expectations of the consequences of developments in medical genetics varied between the subjects. The great majority expected great benefits for medical practice such as an increasing use of genetic aspects of disease for diagnosis or prevention. One fifth, mainly older people, anticipated a negative impact of genetic developments on society. The results also show that most people are reserved to share their genetic information with others, especially with regard to the wider public domain (e.g. industry and insurers) and employers. Remarkably, respondents were more willing to share their genetic information with scientific researchers (68%) than with their relatives (54%).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that although one fifth anticipates negative consequences of genetic developments, the great majority has high expectations about the increasing use of genetics in prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases. In developing educational programmes about genetic innovations in medicine, policymakers will have to take into account pre-existing lay knowledge, views and expectations of different groups of citizens towards these developments.

Racial and Ethnic Variations in Knowledge and Attitudes about Genetic Testing

This study was designed to shed light on whether differences in utilization of genetic testing by African-Americans, Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites are due primarily to different preferences, or whether they instead reflect other values and beliefs or differential access. It explores the values, attitudes, and beliefs of African-Americans, Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites with respect to genetic testing by means of a telephone survey of representative samples of these three groups. The study finds clear evidence that Latinos and African-Americans are, if anything, more likely to express preferences for both prenatal and adult genetic testing than White respondents. At the same time, they hold other beliefs and attitudes that may conflict with, and override, these preferences in specific situations. African-Americans and Latinos are also less knowledgeable about genetic testing than non-Hispanic Whites, and they are less likely to have the financial resources or insurance coverage that would facilitate access to testing.

Uptake of BRCA1 Genetic Testing in Adult Sisters and Daughters of Known Mutation Carriers in Norway

This study was undertaken to examine transmission of information to first-degree relatives of BRCA1 mutation carriers and uptake of genetic testing. The intention was to consider revision of current legislation related to privacy if information on life-saving health care was not disseminated to at-risk family members. The Norwegian Radium Hospital provides clinical genetics services for families at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Together with major hospitals nationwide we provide medical surveillance. Nearly all expenses are covered by the National Health insurance. Because of the high number of families with founder mutations in BRCA1, we are in a unique position to gather information about these groups. Within a consecutive series, we identified 75 BRCA1 mutation carriers and registered information transmission and uptake of genetic testing 6 months or more after the index mutation carriers had been informed about their mutation status. These 75 BRCA1 mutation carriers had 172 living first-degree relatives, aged 18 years or older (84 females, 88 males). Forty-four out of 54 (81.5%) of females over 30 had opted for genetic testing. The testing rate among all relatives was 43%. At any age, 63 % of the females underwent genetic testing compared with 24% of the males (p<0.05%). The overwhelming majority of adult females at risk opted for genetic testing. Males with daughters more frequently than males without daughters asked for testing. The findings give neither reason to reconsider legislation on privacy, nor for us to consider more aggressive methods of contacting relatives.