Noor A A Giesbertz, Lars S Assen, Wim H van Harten, Annelien L Bredenoord
{"title":"肿瘤学中的 DNA 测序:关于重新接触义务的焦点小组研究。","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":"{\"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}","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}
DNA sequencing in oncology: a focus group study on a duty to recontact.
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.
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