Awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of genetic and genomics results in a hypothetical research context among patients in Uganda: a qualitative study.

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI:10.1136/jme-2022-108885
Joseph Ochieng, Betty Kwagala, John Barugahare, Marlo Möller, Keymanthri Moodley
{"title":"Awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of genetic and genomics results in a hypothetical research context among patients in Uganda: a qualitative study.","authors":"Joseph Ochieng, Betty Kwagala, John Barugahare, Marlo Möller, Keymanthri Moodley","doi":"10.1136/jme-2022-108885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genetic testing presents unique ethical challenges for research and clinical practice, particularly in low-resource settings. To address such challenges, context-specific understanding of ethical, legal and social issues is essential. Return of genetics and genomics research (GGR) results remains an unresolved yet topical issue particularly in African settings that lack appropriate regulation and guidelines. Despite the need to understand what is contextually acceptable, there is a paucity of empirical research and literature on what constitutes appropriate practice with respect to GGR.The study assessed patients' awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of GGR results in a hypothetical context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Respondents were patients attending the medical outpatient unit of Mulago National Hospital. Three deliberative focus group discussions involving 18 respondents were conducted. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three main themes and several subthemes were identified. Most respondents were aware of genetic testing, supportive of GGR and receiving results. However, only a few had undergone genetic testing due to cost constraints. They articulated the need for adequate information and genetic counselling to inform decision-making. Privacy of results was important to respondents while others were willing to share results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was general awareness and support for GGR and the return of results. Stigmatisation emerged as a barrier to disclosure of results for some. Global health inequity impacts access and affordability of genetic testing and counselling in Africa and should be addressed as a matter of social justice.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"829-834"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11286839/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108885","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Genetic testing presents unique ethical challenges for research and clinical practice, particularly in low-resource settings. To address such challenges, context-specific understanding of ethical, legal and social issues is essential. Return of genetics and genomics research (GGR) results remains an unresolved yet topical issue particularly in African settings that lack appropriate regulation and guidelines. Despite the need to understand what is contextually acceptable, there is a paucity of empirical research and literature on what constitutes appropriate practice with respect to GGR.The study assessed patients' awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of GGR results in a hypothetical context.

Methods: This cross-sectional study employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Respondents were patients attending the medical outpatient unit of Mulago National Hospital. Three deliberative focus group discussions involving 18 respondents were conducted. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.

Results: Three main themes and several subthemes were identified. Most respondents were aware of genetic testing, supportive of GGR and receiving results. However, only a few had undergone genetic testing due to cost constraints. They articulated the need for adequate information and genetic counselling to inform decision-making. Privacy of results was important to respondents while others were willing to share results.

Conclusion: There was general awareness and support for GGR and the return of results. Stigmatisation emerged as a barrier to disclosure of results for some. Global health inequity impacts access and affordability of genetic testing and counselling in Africa and should be addressed as a matter of social justice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乌干达患者对基因检测以及在假设研究背景下返还基因和基因组学结果的认识、体验和看法:一项定性研究。
背景:基因检测给研究和临床实践带来了独特的伦理挑战,尤其是在资源匮乏的环境中。要应对这些挑战,就必须根据具体情况了解伦理、法律和社会问题。遗传学和基因组学研究(GGR)结果的返还仍然是一个尚未解决的热点问题,尤其是在缺乏适当监管和指导方针的非洲地区。尽管有必要了解在什么情况下可以接受,但关于什么是遗传学和基因组学研究方面的适当做法的实证研究和文献却很少。本研究评估了患者对基因检测以及在假设情况下返还遗传学和基因组学研究结果的认识、经验和看法:这项横断面研究采用了定性探索方法。受访者为穆拉戈国立医院医疗门诊部的患者。共进行了三次焦点小组讨论,有 18 名受访者参加。通过主题分析法对数据进行了分析:结果:确定了三个主题和几个次主题。大多数受访者都了解基因检测,支持 GGR 并接受检测结果。然而,由于费用限制,只有少数人进行了基因检测。他们明确表示需要充分的信息和遗传咨询,以便为决策提供依据。结果隐私对受访者很重要,而其他人则愿意分享结果:受访者普遍了解并支持基因遗传学研究和结果返还。结论:受访者普遍了解并支持全球遗传资源报告和结果返还,但污名化成为一些受访者公开结果的障碍。全球卫生不平等影响了非洲基因检测和咨询的可及性和可负担性,应作为社会公正问题加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
期刊最新文献
Generational smoking bans: inegalitarian without disadvantage? Assessing the performance of ChatGPT in medical ethical decision-making: a comparative study with USMLE-based scenarios. What is fair? Ethical analysis of triage criteria and disability rights during the COVID-19 pandemic and the German legislation. Ennui. AI, doping and ethics: On why increasing the effectiveness of detecting doping fraud in sport may be morally wrong.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1