Recontacting in clinical practice: The views and expectations of patients in the United Kingdom

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 25, Issue 10, 2017, Pages 1106-1112

  Carrieri, Daniele ^a   Dheensa, Sandi ^b   Doheny, Shane ^c   Clarke, Angus J ^c   Turnpenny, Peter D ^d   Lucassen, Anneke M ^b,e   Kelly, Susan E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d Royal Devon and Exeter   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SOUTHAMPTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSIS; EXPECTATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PERCEPTION; RESPONSIBILITY; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SUPPORT GROUP; UNITED KINGDOM; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DUTY TO RECONTACT; FEMALE; GENETIC DISORDER; HETEROZYGOTE; MALE; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE;

DUTY TO RECONTACT; FEMALE; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HETEROZYGOTE; HUMANS; MALE; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85038258589     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: 14765438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2017.122     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Rosenthal ET, Bowles KR, Pruss D et al: Exceptions to the rule: case studies in the prediction of pathogenicity for genetic variants in hereditary cancer genes. Clin Genet 2015; 88: 533-541.
2. Sharpe NF: The duty to recontact: benefit and harm. Am J Hum Genet 1999; 65: 1201-1204.
3. Godard B, Kaariainen H, Kristofferson U, Tranebjareg L, Coviello D, Ayme S: Provision of genetic services in Europe: current practices and issues. Eur J Hum Genet 2003; 11Suppl 2: p S13-S48.
4. Letendre M, Godard B: Expanding the physician's duty of care: a duty to recontact? Med Law 2004; 23: 531-539.
5. Rantanen E, Hietala M, Kristoffersson U, Nippert I: Regulations and practices of genetic counselling in 38. European countries: the perspective of national representative. Eur J Hum Genet 2008; 16: 1208-1216.
6. Pyeritz RE: The coming explosion in genetic testing - is there a duty to recontact? N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1367-1369.
7. Carrieri D, Dheensa S, Doheny S et al: Recontacting in clinical practice: an investigation of the views of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in the United Kingdom. Eur J Hum Genet 2017; 25: 275-279.
8. Carrieri D, Lucassen AM, Clarke AJ et al: Recontact in clinical practice: a survey of clinical genetics services in the United Kingdom. Genet Med 2016; 18: 876-881.
9. Fitzpatrick JL, Han C, Costa T, Huggins MJ: The duty to recontact: attitudes of service providers. Am J Hum Genet 1999; 64: 852-860.
10. Hirschhorn K, Fleisher LD, Godmilow L, Howell RR, Lebel RR, McCabe ERB: Duty to re-contact. policy statement: social ethical and legal issues committee of the American College of Medical Geneticists. Genet Med 1999; 1: 171-172.
11. Otten E, Plantinga M, Birnie E et al: Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature. Genet Med 2014; 17: 668-678.
12. McAllister M, Payne K, MacLeod R, Nicholls S: What process attributes of clinical genetics services could maximise patient benefits? Eur J Hum Genet 2008; 16: 1467-1476.
13. Laurie G: Privacy and the right not to know: a plea for conceptual clarity; in Ruth C, Mairi L, Darren S (eds): The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know: Genetic Privacy and Responsibility. Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp 38-51.
14. Hunter AGW, Sharpe N, Mullen M, Meschino WS: Ethical, legal, and practical concerns about recontacting patients to inform them of new information. Am J Med Genet 2001; 103: 265-276.
15. Hunter AGW, Sharpe NF, Mullen M, Meschino WS: Ethical, legal, and practical concerns about recontacting patients to inform them of new information: the case in medical gentics; in Sharpe NF, Carter RF (eds): Genetic Testing. Care, Consent and Liability. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: NJ, USA, 2006.
16. Huggins M, Hahn C, Costa T: Staying informed and recontacting patients about research advances: a study of patient attitudes. Am J Med Genet 1996; Suppl 55: A335.
17. Pelias MZ: Duty to disclose in medical genetics: a legal perspective. Am J Med Genet 1991; 39: 347-354.
18. Almqvist E, Adam S, Bloch M, Fuller A, Meschino W: Risk reversal in predictive testing for huntington disease. Am J Hum Genet 1997; 61: 945-952.
19. Dean JCS, Fitzpatrick DR, Farndon PA: Genetic register in clinical practice: a survey of UK clinical geneticists. J Med Genet 2000; 37: 636-640.
20. Rubinstein WS: Roles and responsibilities of medical geneticists. Fam Cancer 2008; 7: 5-14.
21. Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006; 3: 77-101.
22. Dheensa S, Carrieri D, Kelly S et al: A'joint venture'model of recontacting in clinical genomics: challenges for responsible implementation. Eur J Med Genet 2017; 60: 403-409.
23. Mishler EG: Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative 1986. Harvard University Press.
24. Lesko L, Zineh I, Huang SM: What is clinical utility and why should we care? Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010; 88: 729-733.
25. Foster MW, Mulvihill JJ, Sharp RR: Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genet Med 2009; 11: 570-574.
26. Carrieri D, Dheensa S, Doheny S et al: Recontacting in clinical genetics and genomic medicine? We need to talk about it. Eur J Hum Genet 2017; 25: 520-521.
27. Lock M: Biosociality and susceptibility genes: a cautionary tale; in Gibbon S, Novas C (eds): Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences. Making Biologies and Identities. London: Routledge, 2008.