Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective

The purpose of this paper is to formulate a professional and scientific view on the social, ethical, and legal issues that impact on data storage and DNA banking practices for biomedical research in Europe. Many aspects have been considered, such as the requirements for data storage and DNA banking in the public and private sectors in Europe and the issues relating to DNA banking, that is to say the consent requirements for the banking and further uses of DNA samples, their control and ownership, and the return of benefit derived from DNA exploitation to the community. The methods comprise primarily the review of the existing professional guidelines, legal frameworks and other documents related to the data storage and DNA banking practices in public and private sectors in Europe. Then, the issues related to DNA banking were examined during an international workshop organized by the European Society of Human Genetics Public and Professional Policy Committee in Paris, France, 07-08, April, 2000. A total of 50 experts from 12 European countries attended this workshop. It came out that DNA banking for medical and research purposes is indispensable. It facilitates the constitution of large collections, sharing of samples, multiple testing on the same samples, and repeating testing over the years. However, banking organization is complex, requires multiple actors, and concerns are expressed in various countries. International standardization of ethical requirements and policies with regard to DNA banking has been recommended. Such standardization would facilitate a greater protection of individuals as well as future international cooperation in biomedical research.     

Genetic information and life insurance: a 'real' risk?

Public concern about genetic discrimination, particularly access to insurance following genetic testing, has been reported in the literature. This paper aims to separate myths from realities regarding genetic discrimination in life insurance and to underline the positive aspects of allowing insurers access to relevant genetic information for underwriting purposes. We present a review of the literature pertinent to discrimination in life insurance and a comparative analysis of industries guidelines. There are few reported cases in the literature of validated genetic discrimination. However, the benefits to be gained by allowing insurers access to relevant genetic data could justify fostering a more active role in the use of genetic information by insurance companies.     

Efforts to regulate the collection and use of genetic information.

Public fascination with and support for genetic medicine is complicated by a deeply held fear that genetic information will be used by third parties (eg, insurers, employers, school systems) in ways that will harm the individuals from whom it was derived. Since the mid-1990s there has been much state and some federal legislative activity to address 2 closely related issues: the maintenance of genetic privacy and the prevention of genetic discrimination. These laws have had to confront several challenging questions such as what constitutes a genetic test, is genetic information qualitatively different from other medical information, and is there a means to distinguish between the two. In general the state laws are not well crafted. I will argue that a far more preferable policy is to draft a global, comprehensive medical records privacy law and to develop a model statute that defines the role of predictive genetic information in insurance underwriting. Concerns over misuse of genetic information also pose major issues for the conduct of genomic research. Among those I discuss are ownership of the DNA sample, significant changes in the scope of consent that must precede the decision to volunteer as a subject in genomic research, the reuse of long-archived samples, the challenges to intellectual property rights that flow from research, and the rise of the doctrine of community consent.     

Provision of genetic services in Europe: current practices and issues

This paper examines the professional and scientific views on the social, ethical and legal issues that impact on the provision of genetic services in Europe. Many aspects have been considered, such as the definition and the aims of genetic services, their organization, the quality assessment, public education, as well as the partnership with patients support groups and the multicultural aspects. The methods was primarily the analysis of professional guidelines, legal frameworks and other documents related to the organization of genetic services, mainly from Europe, but also from USA and international organizations. Then, the method was to examine the background data emerging from an updated report produced by the Concerted Action on Genetic Services in Europe, as well as the issues debated by 43 experts from 17 European countries invited to an international workshop organized by the European Society of Human Genetics Public and Professional Policy Committee in Helsinki, Finland, 8 and 9 September 2000. Some conclusions were identified from the ESHG workshop to arrive at outlines for optimal genetic services. Participants were concerned about equal accessibility and effectiveness of clinical genetic services, quality assessment of services, professional education, multidisciplinarity and division of tasks as well as networking. Within European countries, adherence to the organizational principles of prioritization, regionalization and integration into related health services would maximize equal accessibility and effectiveness of genetic actions. There is a need for harmonization of the rules involved in financial coverage of DNA tests in order to make these available to all Europeans. Clear guidelines for the best practice will ensure that the provision of genetic services develops in a way that is beneficial to its customers, be they health professionals or the public, especially since the coordination of clinical, laboratory and research perspectives within a single organizational structure permits a degree of coherence not often found in other specialties.     

Ethical issues concerning genetic testing and screening in public health

Genetic testing (predictive analysis that determines genetic alterations in individuals for clinical purposes) and screening (programs that identify persons within a subpopulation who may be at a higher risk for a genetic disease or condition) are increasingly utilized to promote and improve the public's health. The proliferate use of genetic testing and screening may improve public health outcomes, but it also implicates significant ethical, legal, and social concerns. Within the context of conflicting ethical values from the individual and public health perspectives, individual values such as informed consent and privacy and discrimination protections must be respected. Legal and ethical attempts to exceptionalize genetic tests and information (as compared to other health information) to protect privacy and prevent discrimination are well intended, but can also be unjust and impractical. Respect for individual ethical rights has limits. Principles of public health ethics justify voluntary genetic testing and screening and sharing of data for population-based health purposes. Thus, individual rights should not always trump the use of genetic tests or screening programs (or information derived therefrom) for legitimate public health purposes.     

Unravelling fears of genetic discrimination: an exploratory study of Dutch HCM families in an era of genetic non-discrimination acts

Since the 1990s, many countries in Europe and the United States have enacted genetic non-discrimination legislation to prevent people from deferring genetic tests for fear that insurers or employers would discriminate against them based on that information. Although evidence for genetic discrimination exists, little is known about the origins and backgrounds of fears of discrimination and how it affects decisions for uptake of genetic testing. The aim of this article is to gain a better understanding of these fears and its possible impact on the uptake of testing by studying the case of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). In a qualitative study, we followed six Dutch extended families involved in genetic testing for HCM for three-and-a-half years. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 57 members of these families. Based on the narratives of the families, we suggest that fears of discrimination have to be situated in the broader social and life-course context of family and kin. We describe the processes in which families developed meaningful interpretations of genetic discrimination and how these interpretations affected family members' decisions to undergo genetic testing. Our findings show that fears of genetic discrimination do not so much stem from the opportunity of genetic testing but much more from earlier experiences of discrimination of diseased family members. These results help identify the possible limitations of genetic non-discrimination regulations and provide direction to clinicians supporting their clients as they confront issues of genetic testing and genetic discrimination.     

Informed consent for human genetic and genomic studies: a systematic review

As genetic and genomic studies grow in scale, there are ethical concerns related to the collection and use of genetic information. The emergence of large public databases potentially redefine the terms of participation in genetic and genomic research, and suggests the changing application of traditional ethical principles such as privacy or consent. For this study, we wanted to see whether such developments are reflected in the informed consent processes in human genetic and genomic studies. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the empirical studies that examined informed consent involving large genetic databases in human genetic and genomic studies, grouped the identified issues related to the different stakeholders (including subjects, researchers, and institutional review boards) and discussed the limitations and implications of these findings. Major themes related to the place of bioethical considerations, procured tissues, people involved, process of informed consent and study procedures. Frequently raised issues included confidentiality of participants, documentation of informed consent, public attitudes, future use of participant samples or data, and disclosure of results. Awareness and attention to these bioethical issues as well as assiduousness in managing these concerns in genetic/genomic research would further strengthen and safeguard the rights, safety and well‐being of genetic research participants.     

Health insurance coverage of genetic services in Illinois

PurposeAs a first step toward the improvement of health insurance coverage and reimbursement for genetic services, our study characterizes the current state of health insurance coverage for genetic services in Illinois.MethodsWe used a combination of surveys, interviews, and policy review to obtain data from the largest health insurers in Illinois regarding their coverage of genetic services.ResultsThe health insurance companies in this study vary widely on coverage of and attitudes toward genetic services. Policies were most consistent across insurance companies when there was widespread professional agreement regarding genetic testing, as in the case of cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Other policies, including criteria for BRCA testing, were extremely variable across insurers and did not always reflect accurate medical information. We also found that health insurance companies in Illinois seem unlikely to reimburse for services billed directly by genetic counselors.ConclusionsThese findings suggest several strategies for improving billing, reimbursement, and insurance coverage of genetic services, including (1) legislative amendments mandating coverage of genetic counselors' services; (2) creating consistent criteria for genetic testing; (3) increasing genetic professionals' involvement in the development of coverage policies; and (4) educating insurance companies about the value of genetic services.     

Population genetic screening programmes: principles, techniques, practices, and policies

This paper examines the professional and scientific views on the principles, techniques, practices, and policies that impact on the population genetic screening programmes in Europe. This paper focuses on the issues surrounding potential screening programmes, which require further discussion before their introduction. It aims to increase, among the health-care professions and health policy-makers, awareness of the potential screening programmes as an issue of increasing concern to public health. The methods comprised primarily the review of the existing professional guidelines, regulatory frameworks and other documents related to population genetic screening programmes in Europe. Then, the questions that need debate, in regard to different types of genetic screening before and after birth, were examined. Screening for conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, familial hypercholesterolemia, fragile X syndrome, hemochromatosis, and cancer susceptibility was discussed. Special issues related to genetic screening were also examined, such as informed consent, family aspects, commercialization, the players on the scene and monitoring genetic screening programmes. Afterwards, these questions were debated by 51 experts from 15 European countries during an international workshop organized by the European Society of Human Genetics Public and Professional Policy Committee in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-20, November, 1999. Arguments for and against starting screening programmes have been put forward. It has been questioned whether genetic screening differs from other types of screening and testing in terms of ethical issues. The general impression on the future of genetic screening is that one wants to 'proceed with caution', with more active impetus from the side of patients' organizations and more reluctance from the policy-makers. The latter try to obviate the potential problems about the abortion and eugenics issues that might be perceived as a greater problem than it is in reality. However, it seems important to maintain a balance between a 'professional duty of care' and 'personal autonomy'.     

Life insurance: genomic stratification and risk classification

With the development and increasing accessibility of new genomic tools such as next-generation sequencing, genome-wide association studies, and genomic stratification models, the debate on genetic discrimination in the context of life insurance became even more complex, requiring a review of current practices and the exploration of new scenarios. In this perspective, a multidisciplinary group of international experts representing different interests revisited the genetics and life insurance debate during a 2-day symposium ‘Life insurance: breast cancer research and genetic risk prediction seminar'' held in Quebec City, Canada on 24 and 25 September 2012. Having reviewed the current legal, social, and ethical issues on the use of genomic information in the context of life insurance, the Expert Group identified four main questions: (1) Have recent developments in genomics and related sciences changed the contours of the genetics and life insurance debate? (2) Are genomic results obtained in a research context relevant for life insurance underwriting? (3) Should predictive risk assessment and risk stratification models based on genomic data also be used for life insurance underwriting? (4) What positive actions could stakeholders in the debate take to alleviate concerns over the use of genomic information by life insurance underwriters? This paper presents a summary of the discussions and the specific action items recommended by the Expert Group.Access to genetic information by life insurers has been a topic of discussion for many years.¹ The possibility of using genetic data to underwrite an applicant''s insurance policy has given rise to concerns about the emergence of ‘genetic discrimination''. Genetic discrimination in the field of life insurance is not necessarily illegal in that in insurance underwriting questions about health, family history of disease, or genetic information may constitute legal exceptions to antidiscrimination legislation.^{2, 3} Nevertheless, the expression ‘genetic discrimination'' has acquired public notoriety⁴ and we will use more neutral language in this paper.Countries including Canada, the United States, Russia, and Japan⁵ have chosen not to adopt laws specifically prohibiting access to genetic data for underwriting by life insurers.⁶ In these countries, life insurance underwriters treat genetic data like other types of medical or lifestyle data. However, a growing number of countries such as Belgium, France, and Norway⁵ have chosen to adopt laws to prevent or limit insurers'' access to genetic data for life insurance underwriting. Other countries including Finland and the United Kingdom have developed voluntary arrangements with the industry (ie moratoria) with similar objectives.⁷Life insurance is a private contract between the policy-holder and the insurer. Its principal role is to provide financial security to the beneficiaries in the event of the insured''s death.⁸ Because of this important role, life insurance is often required, or strongly recommended for those seeking loans to acquire primary social goods, like housing or cars.⁹ In Europe, a consequence of the advent of the welfare state is that private insurance has increasingly played a complementary and supplementary role to social insurance by offering additional security and protection to the population. Thus, in this region, insurance is often considered as a social good that allows individuals to live a comfortable life and as a tool to promote social integration.¹⁰ In other regions of the world, this social role of life insurance is also recognized to a lesser extent. Given this social role, equitable access to life insurance is perceived as a sensitive issue and cases of denial looked upon negatively in popular media. Although documented incidents of denial or of increased premiums on the basis of genetic information have remained limited to the context of a few relatively well known, highly penetrant, familial, adult-onset, genetic conditions,¹¹ they have nevertheless generated significant public concern. Fear that insurers will have access to genetic information generated in a clinical or research setting for use in underwriting has been reported by several studies as a reason for non-participation in genetic research or recommended clinical genetic testing.^{12, 13, 14}The clinical utility of genetic testing for monogenic disorders such as Huntington disease, and hereditary forms of cancer are well established.¹⁵ However, genomic risk profiles based on the known common susceptibility variants have limited utility in risk prediction at the individual level, although they could be used for risk stratification in prevention programmes in populations.¹⁶ Today, a new era of genomic research has made it increasingly affordable to scan the entire genome of an individual. Researchers and physicians can interpret these data together with medical and lifestyle information in the form of sophisticated risk prediction models.¹⁷ Moreover, improvement in computing technologies coupled with the Internet make predictive information increasingly available, whether through direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests, genetic data sharing online communities, or international research database projects. Given these important technological and scientific changes, and their impact on various stakeholders. The term ‘stakeholders'' is used in this text to refer to the following groups of individuals: actuaries (person who computes insurance risk and premium rates based on statistical data), academic researchers, community representatives, ethics committees, genetic counsellors, genomic researchers, human rights experts, insurers, governmental representatives, non-governmental organisations, patient representatives, physicians, policy makers, popular media, reinsurers (company in charge of calculating the risk and premium amount for insuring a particular customer), research participants, and underwriters (company or person in charge of calculating the risk involved in providing insurance for a particular customer and to decide how much should be paid for the premium). This list is not meant to be exhaustive as relevant new groups may emerge as this topic further develops in the coming years. A multidisciplinary group of international experts representing different interests (hereinafter ‘the Expert Group'') revisited the genetics and life insurance debate. The following text presents a summary of the issues discussed and the ‘Action Items'' agreed upon by the Expert Group at the ‘Life Insurance, Risk Stratification, and Personalized Medicine Symposium''.     

Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research

Although social and ethical issues related to the storage and use of biologic specimens for genetic research have been discussed extensively in the medical literature, few empiric data exist describing patients' views. This qualitative study explored the views of 26 female breast cancer patients who had consented to donate blood or tissue samples for breast cancer research. Participants generally did not expect personal benefits from research and had few unprompted concerns. Few participants had concerns about use of samples for studies not planned at the time of consent. Some participants did express concerns about insurance or employment discrimination, while others believed that current privacy protections might actually slow breast cancer research. Participants were generally more interested in receiving individual genetic test results from research studies than aggregate results. Most participants did not want individual results of uncertain clinical significance, although others believed that they should be able to receive such information. These data examined the range of participants' views regarding the storage and use of biologic samples. Further research with different and diverse patient populations is critical to establishing an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of human subjects in genetic research and allowing research to progress.     

Preempting genetic discrimination and assaults on privacy: report of a symposium

At a symposium in June, 2002, biomedical researchers, clinicians, legal experts, policymakers, and representatives of the insurance industry and the advocacy community gathered to address issues of genetic privacy and discrimination; and to identify research, legal, and policy gaps needing to be filled. They concluded that over the next decade, as more genetic information becomes available and the public becomes more aware of individual risks, concerns about privacy and discrimination will become increasingly important. Documented cases of genetic discrimination are rare and largely anecdotal, yet individuals with genetic conditions harbor significant fears about discrimination. Current laws enacted to protect individuals from workplace and insurance discrimination offer some measure of protection, but leave many unfilled gaps. Moreover, the use of genetic information in potentially discriminatory ways is not limited to employment and insurability. Existing laws do little to protect people seeking life, disability, or long-term care insurance. And the courts have used genetic information in a wide variety of cases including paternity, criminal, and tort (personal injury) cases. Genetic information that might jeopardize an individual's right to privacy may also be obtained in the course of research studies, including through the collection of DNA and tissue samples. The insurance industry, State and Federal agencies, and the advocacy community are all making efforts to address some of these gaps through legislation and education of clinicians, the public, and policy makers.     

Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications

Individual risk prediction and stratification based on polygenic profiling may be useful in disease prevention. Risk-stratified population screening based on multiple factors including a polygenic risk profile has the potential to be more efficient than age-stratified screening. In this article, we summarize the implications of personalized screening for breast and prostate cancers. We report the opinions of multidisciplinary international experts who have explored the scientific, ethical, and logistical aspects of stratified screening. We have identified (i) the need to recognize the benefits and harms of personalized screening as compared with existing screening methods, (ii) that the use of genetic data highlights complex ethical issues including discrimination against high-risk individuals by insurers and employers and patient autonomy in relation to genetic testing of minors, (iii) the need for transparency and clear communication about risk scores, about harms and benefits, and about reasons for inclusion and exclusion from the risk-based screening process, and (iv) the need to develop new professional competences and to assess cost-effectiveness and acceptability of stratified screening programs before implementation. We conclude that health professionals and stakeholders need to consider the implications of incorporating genetic information in intervention strategies for health-care planning in the future.Genet Med 2013:15(6):423–432     

Ethical and public health implications of genetic testing for suicide risk: family and survivor perspectives

PurposeDeath from suicide has an estimated heritability of ~50%. Research may soon allow calculation of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for suicide death, which could be marketed directly to consumers. This raises ethical concerns. Understanding how consumers will utilize this information is urgent.MethodsWe conducted three focus groups involving suicide attempt survivors (“survivors”) and family members of suicide decedents (“family members”) to gauge their reactions to this technology. Questions focused on positive and negative implications of PRS results. Qualitative research methods were used to summarize studio results.ResultsEight survivors and 13 family members participated. Both groups postulated benefits of suicide PRS, including prevention and reduced stigma. Their concerns ranged from increased stigma to adverse psychological effects. They suggested that suicide PRS should be accompanied by extensive education and counseling. Participants experienced no adverse effects.ConclusionMany ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic testing for suicide risk are highly salient to community stakeholders. Our participants hoped that suicide PRS could have significant individual and community-level benefits, but had concerns about effects in several domains, including stigma, access to insurance and employment, and increased anxiety and depression.     

Life insurance and breast cancer risk assessment: adverse selection,genetic testing decisions,and discrimination

Life insurance industry access to genetic information is controversial. Consumer groups argue that access will increase discrimination in life insurance premiums and discourage individuals from undergoing genetic testing that may provide health benefits. Conversely, life insurers argue that without access to risk information available to individuals, they face substantial financial risk from adverse selection. Given this controversy, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of breast cancer risk information on life insurance purchasing, the impact of concerns about life insurance discrimination on use of BRCA1/2 testing, and the incidence of life insurance discrimination following participation in breast cancer risk assessment and BRCA1/2 testing. Study participants were 636 women who participated in genetic counseling and/or genetic testing at a University based clinic offering breast cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling, and BRCA1/2 testing between January 1995 and May 2000. Twenty-seven women (4%) had increased and six (1%) had decreased their life insurance since participation in breast cancer risk assessment. The decision to increase life insurance coverage was associated with predicted breast cancer risk (adjusted OR 1.03 for each 1% absolute increase in risk, 95% CI 1.01-1.10) and being found to carry a mutation in BRCA1/2 (OR 5.10, 95% CI 1.90-13.66). Concern about life insurance discrimination was inversely associated with the decision to undergo BRCA1/2 testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.85). No respondent reported having life insurance denied or canceled. In this cohort of women, these results indicate that information about increased breast cancer risk is associated with increase in life insurance purchasing, raising the possibility of adverse selection. Although fear of insurance discrimination is associated with the decision not to undergo BRCA1/2 testing, there was no evidence of actual insurance discrimination from BRCA1/2 testing.     

An assessment of written patient information provided at the genetic clinic and relating to genetic testing in seven European countries

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of written information for patients and families about genetic testing, from a range of European countries. Written information relating to genetic testing for five conditions was gathered from genetic departments across seven European countries. Written information for each condition from each country was randomly chosen for assessment. Fourteen key issues had been identified by a number of pre-existing tools (in particular the DISCERN-Genetics tool) as being important for inclusion when developing or assessing material relating to genetic testing. Fifty pieces in total were assessed for the inclusion or omission of key issues. Although the majority of information discussed issues relating to the condition including background and effect (n=48, 96%), treatment and management (n=37, 74%) and heredity and risk (n=49, 98%), only half the information discussed where to obtain additional information and support (n=25, 50%). Less than half the information discussed what happens after the test (n=15, 30%), patient rights (n=12, 24%) and shared decision making (n=12, 24). Benefits were more likely to be included (n=41, 82%) than any risks involved (n=24, 48%). The issue discussed least frequently was the possible psychological and social effects of genetic testing (n=9, 18%). Pre-written leaflets tended to provide a more comprehensive discussion of the issues surrounding genetic testing than personal letters did and should therefore routinely be available to patients alongside personal letters. Written information should include risks and limitations of testing as well as discussion of the psychological and social aspects of genetic testing.     

China's genetic services providers' attitudes towards several ethical issues: a cross-cultural survey

Attitudes towards ethical, legal and social issues in genetic research and practice were investigated in 402 genetic services providers from 30 provinces and autonomous regions in China. This was done using a Chinese version of an international survey questionnaire on ethics and genetics that has been circulated in 37 nations. In all, 255 study participants completed questionnaires (63%). The majority of the respondents (89%) reported that they agreed with the current Chinese laws and regulations on termination of pregnancy for genetic abnormalities and non-medical indications, on the basis of considerations of population control and family planning. More than half the respondents opposed sex selection by prenatal diagnosis in the absence of an X-linked disorder. However, most of them (86%) would prefer directive counseling. More than half would agree to disclose genetic information to relatives at risk, and would permit third parties such as law enforcement agencies, spouse/partner, blood relatives, employers involving public safety, life and health insurers to access stored DNA without consent. The majority (73%-98%) also thought that DNA fingerprinting should be required for prisoners convicted of or charged with crimes, members of armed forces and all newborns. Although these are only the first part of the results of our international survey, they provide an initial basis for international discussion on ethics and genetics in China.     

Ethical and social issues in presymptomatic testing for Huntington''s disease: a European Community collaborative study. European Community Huntington''s Disease Collaborative Study Group.

An analysis of social and ethical aspects of presymptomatic testing for Huntington's disease has been carried out, based on data on linked DNA markers, from four major testing centres in different European Community countries (Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, and United Kingdom). Information was available on 603 applicants, with 213 final results given, of which 32% gave an increased risk. A series of specific issues and problems were documented systematically for all applicants, results being given on frequency of occurrence and illustrated by individual case histories. The principal issues could be grouped as problems of inappropriate referral, problems involving relatives, and problems relating to disclosure of results. At least one important problem was encountered in 46% of applicants, emphasising the importance of expert counselling, preparation, and support of applicants, and of close liaison between clinical, counselling, and laboratory staff. The extensive and detailed information available for Huntington's disease from this and other studies will be of considerable value in relation to genetic testing for other late onset genetic disorders and will be even more relevant to Huntington's disease now that specific mutation analysis is possible for this disorder.     

Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process

The development of new massive sequencing techniques has now made it possible to significantly reduce the time and costs of whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Although WGS will soon become a routine testing tool, new ethical issues have surfaced. In light of these concerns, a systematic review of papers published by expert authors on IC or specific ethical issues related to IC for WGS analysis in the clinical setting has been conducted using the Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Additionally, a search was conducted for international ethical guidelines for genetic studies published by scientific societies and ethical boards. Based on these documents, a minimum set of information to be provided to patients in the IC form was determined. Fourteen and seven documents from the database search and from scientific societies, respectively, were selected. A very high level of consistency between them was found regarding the recommended IC form content. Pre-test counselling and general information common to all genetic tests should be included in the IC form for WGS for diagnostic purposes, but additional information addressing specific issues on WGS are proposed, such as a plan for the ethical, clinically oriented return of incidental findings. Moreover, storage of additional information for future use should also be agreed upon with the patient in advance. Recommendations for WGS studies in the clinical setting concerning both the elements of information and the process of obtaining the IC as well as how to handle the results obtained are proposed.     

Ethical,social, and cultural issues related to clinical genetic testing and counseling in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

PurposeWe performed a systematic review of the ethical, social, and cultural issues associated with delivery of genetic services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe searched 11 databases for studies addressing ethical, social, and/or cultural issues associated with clinical genetic testing and/or counselling performed in LMICs. Narrative synthesis was employed to analyze findings, and resultant themes were mapped onto the social ecological model (PROSPERO #CRD42016042894).ResultsAfter reviewing 13,308 articles, 192 met inclusion criteria. Nine themes emerged: (1) genetic counseling has a tendency of being directive, (2) genetic services have psychosocial consequences that require improved support, (3) medical genetics training is inadequate, (4) genetic services are difficult to access, (5) social determinants affect uptake and understanding of genetic services, (6) social stigma is often associated with genetic disease, (7) family values are at risk of disruption by genetic services, (8) religious principles pose barriers to acceptability and utilization of genetic services, and (9) cultural beliefs and practices influence uptake of information and understanding of genetic disease.ConclusionWe identified a number of complex and interrelated ethical, cultural, and social issues with implications implications for further development of genetic services in LMICs.