Genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions: opinions of the British adult population and implications for clinical practice

This study set out to explore the attitudes of a representative sample of the British public towards genetic testing in children to predict disease in the future. We sought opinions about genetic testing for adult-onset conditions for which no prevention/treatment is available during childhood, and about genetic 'carrier' status to assess future reproductive risks. The study also examined participants' level of agreement with the reasons professional organisations give in favour of deferring such testing. Participants (n=2998) completed a specially designed questionnaire, distributed by email. Nearly half of the sample (47%) agreed that parents should be able to test their child for adult-onset conditions, even if there is no treatment or prevention at time of testing. This runs contrary to professional guidance about genetic testing in children. Testing for carrier status was supported by a larger proportion (60%). A child's future ability to decide for her/himself if and when to be tested was the least supported argument in favour of deferring testing.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 5 November 2014; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.221

Limitations and pitfalls of using family letters to communicate genetic risk: a qualitative study with patients and healthcare professionals

European genetic testing guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals (HCPs) discuss the familial implications of any test with a patient and offer written material to help them share the information with family members. Giving patients these “family letters” to alert any relatives of their risk has become part of standard practice and has gone relatively unquestioned over the years. Communication with at-risk relatives will become an increasingly pressing issue as mainstream and routine practice incorporates broad genome tests and as the number of findings potentially relevant to relatives increases. This study therefore explores problems around the use of family letters to communicate about genetic risk. We conducted 16 focus groups with 80 HCPs, and 35 interviews with patients, recruited from across the UK. Data were analyzed thematically and we constructed four themes: 1) HCPs writing family letters: how to write them and why?, 2) Patients’ issues with handing out family letters, 3) Dissemination becomes an uncontrolled form of communication, and 4) When the relative has the letter, is the patient’s and HCP’s duty discharged? We conclude by suggesting alternative and supplementary methods of communication, for example through digital tools, and propose that in comparison to communication by family letter, direct contact by HCPs might be a more appropriate and successful option

Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing:a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Purpose: As whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS) move into routine clinical practice, it is timely to review data that might inform the debate around secondary findings (SF) and the development of policies that maximize participant benefit. Methods: We systematically searched for qualitative and quantitative studies that explored stakeholder views on SF in WES/WGS. Framework analysis was undertaken to identify major themes. Results: 44 articles reporting the views of 11,566 stakeholders were included. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of returning ‘actionable’ findings, but definitions of actionability varied. Stakeholder views on SF disclosure exist along a spectrum: potential WES/WGS recipients’ views were largely influenced by a sense of rights, while views of genomics professionals were informed by a sense of professional responsibility. Experience of genetic illness and testing resulted in greater caution about SF, suggesting that truly informed decisions require an understanding of the implications and limitations of WES/WGS and possible findings. Conclusion: This review suggests that bidirectional interaction during consent might best facilitate informed decision-making about SF, and that dynamic forms of consent, allowing for changing preferences, should be considered. Research exploring views from wider perspectives and from recipients who have received SF is critical if evidence-based policies are to be achieved.</p

Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting