Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Familial Cancer 1/2018

Open Access 01-01-2018 | Original Article

How do clinical genetics consent forms address the familial approach to confidentiality and incidental findings? A mixed-methods study

Authors: Sandi Dheensa, Gillian Crawford, Claire Salter, Michael Parker, Angela Fenwick, Anneke Lucassen

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Genetic test results can be relevant to patients and their relatives. Questions thus arise around whether clinicians regard genetic information as confidential to individuals or to families, and about how they broach this and other issues, including the potential for incidental findings, in consent (forms) for genetic testing. We conducted a content analysis of UK-wide genetic testing consent forms and interviewed 128 clinicians/laboratory scientists. We found that almost all genetic services offered patients multiple, sometimes unworkable, choices on forms, including an option to veto the use of familial genetic information to benefit relatives. Participants worried that documented choices were overriding professional judgement and cautioned against any future forms dictating practice around incidental findings. We conclude that ‘tick-box’ forms, which do little to enhance autonomy, are masking valid consent processes in clinical practice. As genome-wide testing becomes commonplace, we must re-consider consent processes, so that they protects patients’—and relatives’—interests.
Footnotes
1
This was not to castigate services not using the JCGM form, but because the guidance was published in 2011 and was compiled by UK royal colleges and societies, raising a question about whether the guidelines had changed practice.
 
2
There might still be good reasons for HCPs not to use genetic information in this way—for example, if the risk of a relative inferring the patient’s identity is high and, because of some characteristic of the patient and relative’s relationship, inference could lead to patient harm. It is important for HCPs to make such considerations when deciding whether to disclose information and we lay out this argument, in detail, elsewhere [19].
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Shkedi-Rafid S, Dheensa S, Crawford G, Fenwick A, Lucassen A (2014) Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice. J Med Genet 51:715–723CrossRefPubMed Shkedi-Rafid S, Dheensa S, Crawford G, Fenwick A, Lucassen A (2014) Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice. J Med Genet 51:715–723CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP (2011) Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 13:499–504CrossRefPubMed Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP (2011) Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 13:499–504CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Ayuso C, Millán JM, Mancheno M, Dal-Ré R (2013) Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process. Eur J Hum Genet 21:1054–1059CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ayuso C, Millán JM, Mancheno M, Dal-Ré R (2013) Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process. Eur J Hum Genet 21:1054–1059CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Lucassen A, Parker M (2010) Confidentiality and sharing genetic information with relatives. Lancet 375:1507–1509CrossRefPubMed Lucassen A, Parker M (2010) Confidentiality and sharing genetic information with relatives. Lancet 375:1507–1509CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
go back to reference Hallowell N, Cooke S, Crawford G, Lucassen A, Parker M, Snowdon C (2010) An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research. J Med Ethics 36:37–45CrossRefPubMed Hallowell N, Cooke S, Crawford G, Lucassen A, Parker M, Snowdon C (2010) An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research. J Med Ethics 36:37–45CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Scollon S, Bergstrom K, Kerstein RA, Wang T, Hilsenbeck SG, Ramamurthy U, Gibbs RA, Eng CM, Chintagumpala MM, Berg SL, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Plon SE, Parsons DW (2014) Obtaining informed consent for clinical tumor and germline exome sequencing of newly diagnosed childhood cancer patients. Genome Med 6:69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Scollon S, Bergstrom K, Kerstein RA, Wang T, Hilsenbeck SG, Ramamurthy U, Gibbs RA, Eng CM, Chintagumpala MM, Berg SL, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Plon SE, Parsons DW (2014) Obtaining informed consent for clinical tumor and germline exome sequencing of newly diagnosed childhood cancer patients. Genome Med 6:69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Lucassen A (2017) Approaching confidentiality at a familial level in genomic medicine: a focus group study with healthcare professionals. BMJ Open 7(2):e012443CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Lucassen A (2017) Approaching confidentiality at a familial level in genomic medicine: a focus group study with healthcare professionals. BMJ Open 7(2):e012443CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
16.
go back to reference Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S (2013) Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 13(1):117CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S (2013) Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 13(1):117CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W (2008) Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 337:687CrossRef Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W (2008) Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 337:687CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wouters RH, Bijlsma RM, Ausems MG, van Delden JJ, Voest EE, Bredenoord AL (2016) Am I my Family’s Keeper? Disclosure dilemmas in next generation sequencing. Hum Mutat. doi:10.1002/humu.23118 PubMed Wouters RH, Bijlsma RM, Ausems MG, van Delden JJ, Voest EE, Bredenoord AL (2016) Am I my Family’s Keeper? Disclosure dilemmas in next generation sequencing. Hum Mutat. doi:10.​1002/​humu.​23118 PubMed
22.
go back to reference Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Shkedi-Rafid S, Crawford G, Lucassen A (2016) Health-care professionals’ responsibility to patients’ relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Genet Med 18:290–301CrossRefPubMed Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Shkedi-Rafid S, Crawford G, Lucassen A (2016) Health-care professionals’ responsibility to patients’ relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Genet Med 18:290–301CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Lucassen A (2016) ‘Is this knowledge mine and nobody else’s? I don’t feel that.’ Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine. J Med Ethics 42:174–179CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Lucassen A (2016) ‘Is this knowledge mine and nobody else’s? I don’t feel that.’ Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine. J Med Ethics 42:174–179CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Pereira S, Oliver Robinson J, McGuire AL (2016) Return of individual genomic research results: what do consent forms tell participants? Eur J Hum Genet 24:1524–1529CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pereira S, Oliver Robinson J, McGuire AL (2016) Return of individual genomic research results: what do consent forms tell participants? Eur J Hum Genet 24:1524–1529CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Appelbaum PS, Waldman CR, Fyer A, Klitzman R, Parens E, Martinez J, Price WN, Chung WK (2014) Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research. Genet Med 16:367–373CrossRefPubMed Appelbaum PS, Waldman CR, Fyer A, Klitzman R, Parens E, Martinez J, Price WN, Chung WK (2014) Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research. Genet Med 16:367–373CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Beskow LM, Friedman JY, Hardy NC, Lin L, Weinfurt KP (2010) Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: stakeholder perspectives. Genet Med 12:567–572CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Beskow LM, Friedman JY, Hardy NC, Lin L, Weinfurt KP (2010) Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: stakeholder perspectives. Genet Med 12:567–572CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Holbrook A (2008) Acquiescence response bias. In: Lavrakas P (ed) Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks Holbrook A (2008) Acquiescence response bias. In: Lavrakas P (ed) Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks
29.
go back to reference Hirschberg I, Kahrass H, Strech D (2014) International requirements for consent in biobank research: qualitative review of research guidelines. J Med Genet 51:773–781CrossRefPubMed Hirschberg I, Kahrass H, Strech D (2014) International requirements for consent in biobank research: qualitative review of research guidelines. J Med Genet 51:773–781CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Ponder M, Statham H, Hallowell N, Moon JA, Richards M, Raymond FL (2008) Genetic research on rare familial disorders: consent and the blurred boundaries between clinical service and research. J Med Ethics 34:690–694CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ponder M, Statham H, Hallowell N, Moon JA, Richards M, Raymond FL (2008) Genetic research on rare familial disorders: consent and the blurred boundaries between clinical service and research. J Med Ethics 34:690–694CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference O’Neill O (2001) Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge O’Neill O (2001) Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Metadata
Title
How do clinical genetics consent forms address the familial approach to confidentiality and incidental findings? A mixed-methods study
Authors
Sandi Dheensa
Gillian Crawford
Claire Salter
Michael Parker
Angela Fenwick
Anneke Lucassen
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-017-9994-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Familial Cancer 1/2018 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine