DNA sequencing in oncology: a focus group study on a duty to recontact.

IF 2.4 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Future Science OA Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1080/20565623.2024.2432233
Noor A A Giesbertz, Lars S Assen, Wim H van Harten, Annelien L Bredenoord
{"title":"DNA sequencing in oncology: a focus group study on a duty to recontact.","authors":"Noor A A Giesbertz, Lars S Assen, Wim H van Harten, Annelien L Bredenoord","doi":"10.1080/20565623.2024.2432233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Particularly in genetics, former results can gain new meaning in the course of time. This raises questions about when professionals should recontact patients with new information. The aim of this focus group study is to clarify how different stakeholders in oncology think about the extent and limits of a duty to recontact.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One focus group with oncology patients (n = 12) and two groups with healthcare professionals (total n = 13) were conducted. In general, there was support for recontacting patients. The scope and extent of this duty was, however, perceived differently. Differences and similarities on the following six contextual factors are discussed: information features, costs and efforts, personal preferences, who is contacted, clinic or research setting, and time.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Oncology patients were clear in their wish to receive updates while the professionals were more hesitant to consider recontact as a standard of care. This is not surprising as recontacting patients with new information would mean a shift from a <i>patient-initiated</i> approach toward an <i>information-initiated</i> approach. This entails a different way of offering healthcare. Furthermore, the question is not only what professionals' responsibilities are, but how to design a system that complies with patients' wishes to receive updates.</p>","PeriodicalId":12568,"journal":{"name":"Future Science OA","volume":"10 1","pages":"2432233"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11587842/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future Science OA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20565623.2024.2432233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Particularly in genetics, former results can gain new meaning in the course of time. This raises questions about when professionals should recontact patients with new information. The aim of this focus group study is to clarify how different stakeholders in oncology think about the extent and limits of a duty to recontact.

Materials and methods: One focus group with oncology patients (n = 12) and two groups with healthcare professionals (total n = 13) were conducted. In general, there was support for recontacting patients. The scope and extent of this duty was, however, perceived differently. Differences and similarities on the following six contextual factors are discussed: information features, costs and efforts, personal preferences, who is contacted, clinic or research setting, and time.

Discussion: Oncology patients were clear in their wish to receive updates while the professionals were more hesitant to consider recontact as a standard of care. This is not surprising as recontacting patients with new information would mean a shift from a patient-initiated approach toward an information-initiated approach. This entails a different way of offering healthcare. Furthermore, the question is not only what professionals' responsibilities are, but how to design a system that complies with patients' wishes to receive updates.

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
肿瘤学中的 DNA 测序:关于重新接触义务的焦点小组研究。
导言:特别是在遗传学领域,以前的结果随着时间的推移会有新的意义。这就提出了专业人员何时应就新信息重新联系患者的问题。本焦点小组研究旨在阐明肿瘤学领域的不同利益相关者如何看待重新联系义务的范围和限度:开展了一个有肿瘤患者参加的焦点小组(12 人)和两个有医护人员参加的小组(共 13 人)。总体而言,重新联系患者得到了支持。但对这一职责的范围和程度却有不同看法。本文讨论了以下六个背景因素的异同:信息特征、成本和努力、个人偏好、联系对象、诊所或研究环境以及时间:肿瘤患者明确表示希望收到最新信息,而专业人员则对是否将重新联系作为一种护理标准犹豫不决。这并不奇怪,因为向患者重新提供新信息意味着从患者主动提供信息转变为信息主动提供信息。这意味着提供医疗服务的方式将发生变化。此外,问题不仅在于专业人员的责任是什么,还在于如何设计一个符合病人接收最新信息意愿的系统。
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
Future Science OA
Future Science OA MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Future Science OA is an online, open access, peer-reviewed title from the Future Science Group. The journal covers research and discussion related to advances in biotechnology, medicine and health. The journal embraces the importance of publishing all good-quality research with the potential to further the progress of research in these fields. All original research articles will be considered that are within the journal''s scope, and have been conducted with scientific rigour and research integrity. The journal also features review articles, editorials and perspectives, providing readers with a leading source of commentary and analysis. Submissions of the following article types will be considered: -Research articles -Preliminary communications -Short communications -Methodologies -Trial design articles -Trial results (including early-phase and negative studies) -Reviews -Perspectives -Commentaries
期刊最新文献
Case report: lichen planus in a patient with ulcerative colitis receiving sulfasalazine: a drug effect or a disease manifestation? Validation of salivary proteomic biomarkers for early detection of oral cancer in the Egyptian population. Endoscope disinfectant-induced colonic pseudolipomatosis: case series of a rare condition. A comprehensive approach for detection of biotin deficiency from dried blood spot samples using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Ferric carboxymaltose for iron deficiency in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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