17 research outputs found

    Health-care professionals' responsibility to patients' relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research

    No full text
    Purpose: the extent of the responsibility of health-care professionals (HCPs) to ensure that patients’ relatives are told of their risk is unclear. Current international guidelines take confidentiality to the individual patient as the default position, but some suggest that disclosure could be default and genetic information could be conceptualized as familial.Methods: our systematic review and synthesis of 17 studies explored the attitudes of HCPs, patients, and the public regarding the extent of HCPs’ responsibility to relatives with respect to disclosure.Results: health-care professionals generally felt a responsibility to patients’ relatives but perceived a variety of reasons why it would be difficult to act on this responsibility. Public/patient views were more wide-ranging. Participants identified several competing and overlapping arguments for and against HCP disclosure: guidelines do not permit/mandate it, privacy, medical benefit, impact on family dynamics, quality of communication, and respecting autonomy.Conclusion: we argue that HCPs can sometimes share genetic information without breaching confidentiality and that they could factor into their considerations the potential harm to family dynamics of nondisclosure. However, we need more nuanced research about their responsibilities to relatives, particularly as genomic tests are used more frequently in clinical practic

    Participation of low-income women in genetic cancer risk assessment and BRCA 1/2 testing: the experience of a safety-net institution

    No full text
    Some communities and populations lack access to genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) and testing. This is particularly evident in safety-net institutions, which serve a large segment of low-income, uninsured individuals. We describe the experience of a safety-net clinic with limited resources in providing GCRA and BRCA1/2 testing. We compared the proportion and characteristics of high-risk women who were offered and underwent GCRA and genetic testing. We also provide a description of the mutation profile for affected women. All 125 patients who were offered GCRA accepted to undergo GCRA. Of these, 72 % had a breast cancer diagnosis, 70 % were Hispanic, 52.8 % were non-English speakers, and 66 % did not have health insurance. Eighty four (67 %) were offered genetic testing and 81 (96 %) agreed. Hispanic women, those with no medical insurance, and those with a family history of breast cancer were significantly more likely to undergo testing (p > 0.01). Twelve of 81 (15 %) patients were found to have deleterious mutations, seven BRCA1, and five BRCA2. Our experience shows that it is possible to offer GCRA and genetic testing even in the setting of limited resources for these services. This is important given that a large majority of the low-income women in our study agreed to undergo counseling and testing. Our experience could serve as a model for similar low-resource safety-net health settings
    corecore