Assessing genetic testing: Who are the "lay experts"?

Health Policy

Volumn 85, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-18

  Goven, Joanna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Genetic testing; Health technology assessment; Lay expertise; Local knowledge; Occupational illness

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DISABILITY; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; INSTITUTIONAL CARE; INTERVIEW; OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENT; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE; POLITICS; TECHNOLOGY;

CONSENSUS; EMPLOYMENT; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; NEW ZEALAND; POLITICS; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 36248945663     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Blancquaert I., et al. Meeting the challenge: oversight mechanisms for technology transfer in molecular genetics. Isuma (2001) 103-109
2. Lehoux P., and Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 25 (2000) 1083-1120
3. Silver K., and Sharp R.R. Ethical considerations in testing workers for the-Glu69 marker of genetic susceptibility to chronic beryllium disease. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 48 (2006) 434-443
4. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63 (2003) 121-132
5. Leys M. Health technology assessment: the contribution of qualitative research. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 19 (2003) 317-329
6. Banta H.D., and Jonsson E. Commentary. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 22 (2006) 280-282
7. Leys M. Health care policy: qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy 65 (2003) 217-226
8. Battista R.N. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: a research agenda for the next decade. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 22 (2006) 275-282
9. May C. Mobilising modern facts: health technology assessment and the politics of evidence. Sociology of Health and Illness 28 (2006) 513-532
10. Willis E. The prostatic imperative and the social relations of medical technology. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 13 (1997) 602-612
11. Pivik J., Rodeb E., and Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy 69 (2004) 253-268
12. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 21 (2005) 312-318
13. Braunack-Mayer A.J. Ethics and health technology assessment: Handmaiden and/or critic?. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 22 (2006) 307-312
14. Wynne B. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1 (1992) 281-304
15. Wynne B. Risk management and hazardous waste: implementation and the dialectics of credibility (1987), Springer-Verlag, Berlin
16. Irwin A. Citizen science: a study of people, Expertise and sustainable development (1995), Routledge, London
17. Caron-Flinterman J.F., Broerse J.E.W., and Bunders J.F.G. The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?. Social Science & Medicine 60 (2005) 2575-2584
18. Entwistle V.A., et al. Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. British Medical Journal 316 (1998) 463-464
19. Gollust S.E., et al. Community involvement in developing policies for genetic testing: assessing the interests and experiences of individuals affected by genetic conditions. American Journal of Public Health 95 (2005) 35-41
20. Boote J., Telford R., and Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy 61 (2002) 213-236
21. Wilson P.M. A policy analysis of the Expert Patient in the United Kingdom: self-care as an expression of pastoral power?. Health and Social Care in the Community 9 (2001) 134-142
22. Tritter J.Q., and McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy 76 (2006) 156-168
23. Collins H.M., and Evans R. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2002) 235-296
24. Prior L. Belief, knowledge and expertise: the emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociology of Health & Illness 25 (2003) 41-57
25. Kerr A., Cunningham-Burley S., and Amos A. The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science 7 (1998) 41-60
26. Lehoux P., Poland B., and Daudelin G. Focus group research and "the patient's view". Social Science and Medicine 63 (2006) 2091-2104
27. Wynne B. Creating public alienation:expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10 (2001) 445-448
28. Draper E. Risky business: genetic testing and exclusionary practices in the hazardous workplace (1991), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
29. Nelkin D., and Tancredi L. Dangerous diagnostics: the social power of biological information (1994), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
30. Holtzman N. Are genetic tests adequately regulated?. Science 286 (1999) 409
31. Caulfield T.A. Underwhelmed: hyperbole, regulatory policy, and the genetic revolution. McGill Law Journal 45 (2000) 437-460
32. Staley K. Genetic testing in the workplace: a report for genewatch UK (2003), Genewatch, Derbyshire, UK
33. Billings P.R., et al. Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. American Journal of Human Genetics 50 (1992) 476-482
34. Brandt-Rauf P.W., and Brandt-Rauf S.I. Genetic testing in the workplace: ethical, legal, and social implications. Annual Review of Public Health 25 (2004) 153-193
35. Marris E. Unchecked by government, genetic tests sell hope and hype. Nature Medicine 11 (2005) 584
36. Hudson K.L., et al. Oversight of US genetic testing laboratories. Nature Biotechnology 24 (2006) 1083-1090
37. OECD. Quality assurance and proficiency testing for molecular genetic testing: survey of 18 member countries. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2005. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/12/34779945.pdf.
38. New Zealand National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability. Molecular genetic testing in New Zealand (2003), National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (National Health Committee), Wellington, NZ
39. Schulte P.A., and Lomax G. Assessment of the scientific basis for genetic testing of railroad workers with carpal tunnel syndrome. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 45 (2003) 592-600
40. NewsHour Health Unit. Genetic Testing: A look at the ethics behind testing for genetic diseases. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS); June 7, 2001. Available online: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june01/genetest_06-07.html [accessed November 28, 2006].
41. Baird P. Current challenges to appropriate clinical use of new genetic knowledge in different countries. Community Genetics 4 (2001) 12-17
42. Wilson M. Speech to the Employers' and Manufacturers' Association Occupational Health and Safety Conference. April 9 (2003)
43. Dew K., Keefe V., and Small K. "Choosing" to work when sick: workplace presenteeism. Social Science and Medicine 60 (2005) 2273-2282
44. Pearce N., et al. Surveillance of occupational disease and injury in New Zealand: Report to the Minister of Labour (2005), National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee (NOHSAC), Wellington, NZ
45. 't Mannetje A., and Pearce N. Quantitative estimates of work-related death, disease and injury in New Zealand. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health 31 (2005) 266-276
46. Hannif ZN, Lamm F. Occupational Health and Safety in the New Zealand Call Centre Industry. Employment Studies Centre Working Paper No 8. Newcastle, Australia: University of Newcastle Business School; 2005.
47. Baker V. Relationships and dependencies between OSH, ACC and employer clients. In: Lloyd M. (Ed). Occupational health and safety in New Zealand: contemporary social research (2002), The Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, NZ 67-92
48. Report of a Ministerial Inquiry into the Management of Certain Hazardous Substances in Workplaces. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Department of Labour; July 2003. Available online http://www.osh.govt.nz/resources/hazsubstancesinquiry/index.shtml.
49. New Zealand Department of Labour, Health and Safety Section Homepage. Available online: http://www.osh.labour.govt.nz [Last accessed November 29, 2006].
50. Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Partnership programme: the self-managing accident insurance option for employers (2001), ACC, Wellington, NZ
51. Dyson R. Address to the injury prevention network conference. November 17, 2005. Available online: http://www.labour.org.nz/RuthDyson/speeches_and_releases/address_injury_rdspeech_110205/index.html [last accessed November 28, 2006].
52. Report of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Work Related Gradual Process, Disease or Infection. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Department of Labour; 2005.
53. Access Economics. The economic and social costs of occupational disease and injury in New Zealand (2006), NOHSAC, Wellington, NZ
54. New Zealand Human Rights Commission. Human Rights in New Zealand Today: Executive Summary. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Human Rights Commission; 2004. Available online: http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/summaryofconclusions.php [last accessed November 28, 2006].
55. Battuello K., Furlong C., Austin M., and Burke W. Genetic variation in pon1 and pesticide sensitivity: implications for workplace screening (2002), Center for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
56. Blaxter M. The meaning of disability: a sociological study of impairment (1976), Heinemann, London
57. Dew K. Accident insurance, sickness, and science: New Zealand's no-fault system. International Journal of Health Services 32 1 (2002) 163-178
58. UK Human Genetics Commission. Inside information: balancing interests in the use of personal genetic data. London: UK Human Genetics Commission; 2002 Available online: www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/document.asp?DocId=19&CAtegoryId=3 [last accessed November 29, 2006].
59. McNally E., et al. Ethical, legal and social aspects of genetic testing: research, development and clinical applications (2004), European Commission, Brussels
60. Hodgson Rebuffs Apology Call Over Dioxin, October 26, 2006. http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=343353&catid=32 [last accessed November 29, 2006].