Journal of Community Genetics最新文献

Understanding attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality is important in guiding policies regarding special protections for genetic/genomic information stored in electronic health records (EHR). The goals of this study were to determine biobank participants' attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality and whether those attitudes are related to their preference for return of genetic results. An online questionnaire was distributed to patients with an EHR and email address who had previously enrolled in the BioMe Biobank program. Most participants responded with similar levels of concern in scenarios involving the use of genetic information and other types of health information, suggesting that participants want similar protections for genetic data as other types of sensitive health information, particularly mental health and family history records. Of the 829 respondents, the majority had genetic exceptionalist views when directly asked, even though their concerns about confidentiality were similar for their genetic information and other health information. There were no differences in genetic exceptionalist views between those who had a documented preference to have genetic results returned and those who did not. Notably, for many participants, their recall of preference did not align with their documented preference. The majority of biobank participants were most anxious about the loss of confidentiality for genetic, mental health, and family history information, indicating that certain types of health information are considered more "sensitive" than others. These findings suggest the importance of assuring people participating in biobank research that the confidentiality of their "sensitive" health information is secured.

In the last decades, genetics has experienced significant technological advancements worldwide. However, in Portugal, serious limitations persist, compromising the functioning of healthcare in medical genetics. This study aimed to promote sharing and discussion among genetic medical professionals, to outline concrete actions to address gaps in clinical practice. Three focus groups were conducted with 19 specialists in medical genetics. The data were analyzed using the thematic analysis method to extract the main themes from the discussions. From the analysis, four conceptual themes emerged: (i) framing Portuguese genetic services in light of the European context; (ii) improvement of medical genetics education and population literacy; (iii) transforming of medical genetics services; and (iv) operationalizing the change. The results demonstrated that increasing training resources and strengthening multiprofessional teams by hiring more genetic professionals, such as clinical geneticists, molecular geneticists, and other genetic specialists, is crucial to enhancing the responsiveness of genetic services. Integrating medical genetics into all specialties and primary care, as well as updating the national network of medical genetics, are critical points for increasing equity and enabling healthcare to be provided more fairly. Including other medical genetics professionals such as genetic counsellors, nurses and psychologists also plays a significant role in providing comprehensive and quality care. This collaborative approach aims to provide effective genetic assistance and enhance the adequacy of genetic healthcare. The findings are compiled as recommendations to support the profession moving forward that can be applied to other healthcare contexts worldwide.

Background: Polygenic scores (PGS) have been developed for cancer risk-estimation and show potential as tools to prompt earlier referral for high-risk individuals and aid risk-stratification within cancer screening programmes. This review explores the potential for using PGS to identify individuals at risk of the most common cancers seen in primary care.

Methods: Two electronic databases were searched up until November 2023 to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies that reported on the acceptability and clinical impact of using PGS to identify individuals at highest risk of breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer in primary care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies and a narrative synthesis was used to analyse data.

Results: A total of 190 papers were identified, 18 of which were eligible for inclusion. A cancer risk-assessment tool incorporating PGS was acceptable to the general practice population and their healthcare providers but major challenges to implementation were identified, including lack of evidence for PGS in non-European ancestry and a need for healthcare provider education in genomic medicine. A PGS cancer risk-assessment had relatively limited impact on psychosocial outcomes and health behaviours. However, for prostate cancer, potential applications for its use in primary care were shown.

Conclusions: Cancer risk assessment incorporating PGS in primary care is acceptable to patients and healthcare providers but there is a paucity of research exploring clinical impact. Few studies were identified, and more research is required before clinical implementation of PGS can be recommended.

Given the potentially large ethical and societal implications of human germline gene editing (HGGE) the urgent need for public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) has been repeatedly expressed. However, the explicit goals of such PSE efforts often remain poorly defined. In this program report, we outline the goals of our Dutch project called De DNA dialogen (The DNA dialogues). We believe that setting explicit goals in advance is essential to enable meaningful PSE efforts. Moreover, it enables the evaluation of our engagement efforts. The following four goals, which result from intensive consultations among the transdisciplinary projects' consortium members and based on the literature, form the foundation for how we will engage the public and stakeholders in deliberation about HGGE: 1) Enable publics and stakeholders to deliberate on "what if" questions, before considering "whether" and "how" questions regarding HGGE, 2) Investigate agreement and disagreement in values and beliefs regarding HGGE in order to agree and disagree more precisely, 3) Involve diverse publics with various perspectives, with a focus on those that are typically underrepresented in PSE, 4) Enable societally aligned policy making by providing policymakers, health care professionals and legal experts insight into how values are weighed and ascribed meaning in the context of HGGE by various publics, and how these values relate to the principles of democratic rule of law and fundamental rights. The effort to describe our goals in detail may serve as an example and can inform future initiatives striving for open science and open governance in the context of PSE.

Up to 25% of pediatric cataract cases are inherited. There is sparse information in the literature regarding the cost of whole-exome sequencing (WES) for suspected hereditary pediatric cataracts. Molecular diagnosis of suspected hereditary pediatric cataracts is important for comprehensive genetic counseling. We performed a partial economic evaluation with a mixed costing analysis, using reimbursement data and microcosting approach with a bottom-up technique to estimate the cost of using WES for genetic diagnosis of suspected hereditary pediatric cataracts from the perspective of the Brazilian governmental health care system. One hundred and ten participants from twenty-nine families in Rio de Janeiro (RJ) were included. Costs of consumables, staff and equipment were calculated. Two scenarios were created: (1) The reference scenario included patients from RJ with suspected hereditary pediatric cataracts plus two family members. (2) The alternative scenario considered other genetic diseases, resulting in 5,280 exams per month. Sensitivity analysis was also performed. In the reference scenario, the total cost per exam was 700.09 United States dollars (USD), and in the alternative scenario, the total cost was 559.23 USD. The cost of WES alone was 527.85 USD in the reference scenario and 386.98 USD in the alternative scenario. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the largest costs were associated with consumables in both scenarios. Economic evaluations can help inform policy decisions, especially in middle-income countries such as Brazil.

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) examines genes and somatic mutations specific to a patient's tumor to identify targets for cancer treatments but can also uncover secondary hereditary (germline) mutations. Most patients are unprepared to make complex decisions related to this information. Black/African American (AA) cancer patients are especially at risk because of lower health literacy, higher levels of medical mistrust, and lower awareness and knowledge of genetic testing. But little is known about their TGP attitudes or preferences. Five in-person focus groups were conducted with Black/AA cancer patients (N = 33) from an NCI-designated cancer center and an affiliated oncology unit in an urban safety-net hospital located in Philadelphia. Focus groups explored participants' understanding of TGP, cultural beliefs about genetics, medical mistrust, and how these perceptions informed decision-making. Participants were mostly female (81.8%), and one-third had some college education; mean age was 57 with a SD of 11.35. Of patients, 33.3% reported never having heard of TGP, and 48.5% were not aware of having had TGP as part of their cancer treatment. Qualitative analysis was guided by the principles of applied thematic analysis and yielded five themes: (1) mistrust of medical institutions spurring independent health-information seeking; (2) genetic testing results as both empowering and overwhelming; (3) how provider-patient communication can obviate medical mistrust; (4) how unsupportive patient-family communication undermines interest in secondary-hereditary risk communication; and (5) importance of developing centralized patient support systems outside of treatment decisions. Results improve understanding of how Black/AA patients perceive of TGP and how interventions can be developed to assist with making informed decisions about secondary hereditary results.

Within the numerous policy and governance recommendations for human genome editing research, anticipatory public engagement seems universally agreed upon as a vital endeavor. Yet it is unclear whether and how scientists whose research involves genome editing see value in engaging the public in discussions of genome editing research governance. To address this question, we interviewed 81 international scientists who use genome editing in their research. The views of our scientist interviewees about public engagement occupied a broad spectrum from enthusiastic support to strong skepticism. But most scientists' views landed somewhere in the middle, seeing public engagement as merely informing the public about the science of genome editing. We argue that such a stance reflects the traditional "knowledge-deficit model." Beyond addressing the operational difficulties of public engagement, many scientists' adherence to the deficit model is a deeper barrier that needs to be addressed if public engagement is to occur and be successful.

Primary Health Care (PHC) is the gateway for patients in the Brazilian unified health system (Sistema Único de Saúde-SUS), playing an extremely important role in the identification of potential patients with genetic diseases, and referral to specialized and tertiary health services. The PHC is composed of a multidisciplinary team, including the Community Health Agent, who is in direct contact with the community. To implement an educational program aimed at community health agents working in several municipalities in the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Brazil. The training was focused on genetic diseases in general, with a special focus on identifying patients with Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS). Tests were applied before and after the educational intervention, in order to assess the participants' knowledge on the topic at these two moments. The study covered a total of ten training sessions carried out in eight municipalities in the RS state, training 374 community health agents. The number of correct answers in the pre-test (n = 339) was 8,4 (SD 1.2), while in the post-test (n = 361) it was 9,2 (SD 0.8). Statistical analysis showed that the educational intervention effectively provided information about genetic diseases to the participants. Considering that community health agents are of fundamental importance in the identification and prevention of diseases and in the better navigation of the patients on the SUS, these professionals play a key role in the field of rare genetic diseases, and continuous training strategies should be taken.

Clinical chatbots are increasingly used to help integrate genetic testing into clinical contexts, but no chatbot exists for Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genetic testing of living kidney donor (LKD) candidates of African ancestry. Our study aimed to culturally adapt and assess perceptions of the Gia® chatbot to help integrate APOL1 testing into LKD evaluation. Ten focus groups and post-focus group surveys were conducted with 54 LKDs, community members, and kidney transplant recipients of African ancestry. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Key themes about making Gia culturally targeted included ensuring: (1) transparency by providing Black LKDs' testimonials, explaining patient privacy and confidentiality protections, and explaining how genetic testing can help LKD evaluation; (2) content is informative by educating Black LKDs about APOL1 testing instead of aiming to convince them to undergo testing, presenting statistics, and describing how genetic discrimination is legally prevented; and (3) content avoids stigma about living donation in the Black community. Most agreed Gia was neutral and unbiased (82%), trustworthy (82%), and words, phrases, and expressions were familiar to the intended audience (85%). Our culturally adapted APOL1 Gia chatbot was well regarded. Future research should assess how this chatbot could supplement provider discussion prior to genetic testing to scale APOL1 counseling and testing for LKD candidate clinical evaluation.