Stakeholder engagement in policy development: Challenges and opportunities for human genomics

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 17, Issue 12, 2015, Pages 949-957

  Lemke, Amy A ^a   Harris Wai, Julie N ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b DIVISION OF RESEARCH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

genomics; key stakeholders; policy; policy making; stakeholder engagement

Indexed keywords

GENOMICS; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; NEWBORN; NEWBORN SCREENING; ORGANIZATION; PUBLIC HEALTH; VOICE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC RELATIONS; STANDARDS;

GENOMICS; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC RELATIONS;

EID: 84949236064     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.8     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2011.
2. Burton H, Adams M, Bunton R, Schröder-Bäck P. Developing stakeholder involvement for introducing public health genomics into public policy. Public Health Genomics 2009;12:11-19.
3. Callaway E. Deal done over HeLa cell line. Nature 2013;500:132-133.
4. Sniderman AD, Furberg CD. Why guideline-making requires reform. JAMA 2009;301:429-431.
5. Terry SF. Don't just invite us to the table: authentic community engagement. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2013;17:443-445.
6. Terry SF, Bonhomme N. Nothing about us without us: guidelines for genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2013;17:357-358.
7. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making-pinnacle of patientcentered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780-781.
8. Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32:223-231.
9. Fleurence R, Selby JV, Odom-Walker K, et al. How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32:393-400.
10. Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR. How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:1834-1841.
11. Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA 2008;300:436-438.
12. O'Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto E, et al. Engaging Stakeholders to Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, 2011.
13. Puddy RW, Wilkins N. Understanding Evidence Part 1: Best Available Research Evidence. A Guide to the Continuum of Evidence of Effectiveness. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, 2011.
14. CTSA Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement. Principles of Community Engagement. 2nd edition. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, MD, 2011.
15. International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). IAP2's Public Participation Toolbox. 2006. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/imported/06Dec-Toolbox.pdf. Accessed 6 March, 2014.
16. Hurle B, Citrin T, Jenkins JF, et al. What does it mean to be genomically literate: National Human Genome Research Institute Meeting Report. Genet Med 2013;15:658-663.
17. O'Doherty KC, MacKenzie MK, Badulescu D, Burgess MM. Explosives, genomics, and the environment: conducting public deliberation on topics of complex science and social controversy. SAGE Open 2013;3:1-17.
18. Syurina EV, Brankovic I, Probst-Hensch N, Brand A. Genome-based health literacy: a new challenge for public health genomics. Public Health Genomics 2011;14:201-210.
19. Mello MM, Wolf LE. The Havasupai Indian tribe case-lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. N Engl J Med 2010;363:204-207.
20. Ramshaw E. DSHS turned over hundreds of DNA samples to Feds. Texas Tribune. 2010. http://www.texastribune.org/2010/02/22/dshs-turned-over-hundredsof-dna-samples-to-feds/. Accessed 6 March, 2014.
21. Carmichael M. Newborn screening: a spot of trouble. Nature 2011;475: 156-158.
22. Beleno v Texas Dept. of State Health Services, et al., Case No. 5:09-cv-00188 (US District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio 2009).
23. MN Supreme Court rules on newborn screening samples. Minn Med 2011;94:18-19.
24. Callaway E. NIH director explains HeLa agreement. Nature News 2013. http://www.nature.com/news/nih-director-explains-hela-agreement-1.13521.
25. Caplan A. NIH finally makes good with Henrietta Lacks' family-and it's about time, ethicist says. 2013; NBC News, 7 August 2013. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100946766. Accessed 6 March, 2014.
26. Coveney J. Analyzing public health policy: three approaches. Health Promot Pract 2010;11:515-521.
27. Bridgman P, Davis G. The Australian Policy Handbook. 3rd ed. Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, NSW, Australia, 2004.
28. Henderson GE, Cadigan RJ, Edwards TP, et al. Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey. Genome Med 2013;5:3.
29. Haldeman KM, Cadigan RJ, Davis A, et al. Community engagement in US biobanking: multiplicity of meaning and method. Public Health Genomics 2014;17:84-94.
30. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system. Genet Med 2006;8(suppl 1):1S-252S.
31. American Academy of Pediatrics. Serving the family from birth to the medical home. Newborn screening: a blueprint for the future-a call for a national agenda on state newborn screening programs. Pediatrics 2000;106(2 Pt 2):389-422.
32. Olson S, Berger AC. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health. Challenges and Opportunities in Using Residual Newborn Screening Samples for Translational Research: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2010.
33. Therrell BL Jr, Hannon WH, Bailey DB Jr, et al. Committee report: Considerations and recommendations for national guidance regarding the retention and use of residual dried blood spot specimens after newborn screening. Genet Med 2011;13:621-624.
34. Schully SD, Lam TK, Dotson WD, et al. Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects. Genet Med 2015;17:63-67.
35. Yu JH, Harrell TM, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ. Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and wholegenome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2014;95:77-84.
36. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. The EGAPP initiative: lessons learned. Genet Med 2014;16:217-224.
37. Burke W, Antommaria AH, Bennett R, et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings We need to talk! Genet Med 2013; 15:854-859.
38. Ross LF, Rothstein MA, Clayton EW. Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: "incidental findings," patient autonomy, and shared decision making. JAMA 2013;310:367-368.
39. Ross LF, Rothstein MA, Clayton EW. Premature guidance about whole-genome sequencing. Per Med 2013;10.
40. Allyse M, Michie M. Not-so-incidental findings: the ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Trends Biotechnol 2013;31:439-441.
41. Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, Friedman JM. Paternalism and the ACMG recommendations on genomic incidental findings: patients seen but not heard. Genet Med 2013;15:751-752.
42. Lemke AA, Wu JT, Waudby C, Pulley J, Somkin CP, Trinidad SB. Community engagement in biobanking: Experiences from the eMERGE Network. Genomics Soc Policy 2010;6:35-52.
43. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Office of Biorepositories and Bioscpecimen Research. Summary: National Cancer Institute Biospecimen Best Practices Forum. 2007. http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/practices/forum/boston2007/pdf/FINAL-11-05-07-NCI-BPs-Forum-Boston-Summary-Rev1-24-08-Ed.pdf. Accessed 6 March, 2014.
44. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Request for Information: Input on the Draft NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy. 2013. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-119.html. Accessed 6 March, 2014.
45. National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Policy for sharing of data obtained in NIH supported or conducted genome-wide association studies (GWAS). 72 FR 49290. E7-17030. 2007; |29290-49297.
46. O'Doherty K, Ibrahim T, Hawkins A, Burgess M, Watson P. Managing the introduction of biobanks to potential participants: lessons from a deliberative public forum. Biopreserv Biobank 2012;10:12-21.
47. Rotimi C, Leppert M, Matsuda I, et al.; International HapMap Consortium. Community engagement and informed consent in the International HapMap project. Community Genet 2007;10:186-198.
48. Duquette D, Langbo C, Bach J, Kleyn M. Michigan BioTrust for Health: public support for using residual dried blood spot samples for health research. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:146-155.
49. Ross LF, Waggoner DJ. Parents: critical stakeholders in expanding newborn screening. J Pediatr 2012;161:385-389.
50. Charter for Illinois Genetic and Metabolic Advisory Committee. http://www.ilga. gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.aspActID=2956&ChapterID=35. Accessed 6 March, 2014.
51. Newborn Screening Task Force. Report to the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 2013.
52. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Charter: Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, 2013.
53. Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, Department of Health and Human Services. Recommended uniform screening panel. 2013. http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders/recommendedpanel/index.html. Accessed 6 March, 2014.