Search

Rapid advances in microarray and sequencing technologies are making genotyping and genome sequencing more affordable and readily available. There is an expectation that genomic sequencing technologies improve personalized diagnosis and personalized drug therapy. Concurrently, provision of direct-to-consumer genetic testing by commercial providers has enabled individuals' direct access to their genomic data. The expanded availability of genomic data is perceived as influencing the relationship between the various parties involved including healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, individuals, families, industry, and government. This results in a need to revisit their roles and responsibilities. In a 1-day agenda-setting meeting organized by the COST Action IS1303 "Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives," participants discussed the main challenges associated with the expanded availability of genomic information, with a specific focus on public-private partnerships, and provided an outline from which to discuss in detail the identified challenges. This paper summarizes the points raised at this meeting in five main parts and highlights the key cross-cutting themes. In light of the increasing availability of genomic information, it is expected that this paper will provide timely direction for future research and policy making in this area.

Genetic testing is becoming more commonplace in general and specialist health care and should always be accompanied by genetic counselling, according to Swedish law. Genetic counsellors are members of the multi-disciplinary team providing genetic counselling. This study examined the role and added value of genetic counsellors in Sweden, using a cross-sectional on-line survey. The findings showed that the genetic counsellors added value in the clinical setting by acting as the 'spider-in-the-web' regarding case management, having a more holistic, ethical and psychological perspective, being able to offer continuous support and build a relationship with the patient, and being more accessible than medical geneticists. The main difference between a genetic counsellor and medical geneticist was that the doctor had the main medical responsibility. Thus genetic counsellors in Sweden contribute substantially to the care of patients in the clinical genetic setting., Funding agencies: Department of Clinical Pathology and Clinical Genetics; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden

In Europe, genetic counsellors are employed in specialist genetic centres or other specialist units. According to the European Board of Medical Genetics, the genetic counsellor must fulfil a range of roles, including provision of information and facilitation of psychosocial adjustment of the client to their genetic status and situation. To evaluate the extent to which genetic counsellors fulfil their prescribed roles, we conducted a systematic review of the published relevant scientific evidence. We searched five relevant electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, SocIndex, AMED and PsychInfo) using relevant search terms and handsearched four subject-specific journals for research-based papers published in English between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2013. Of 419 potential papers identified initially, seven satisfied the inclusion criteria for the review. Themes derived from the thematic analysis of the data were: (i) rationale for genetic counsellors to provide care, (ii) appropriate roles and responsibilities and (iii) the types of conditions included in the genetic counsellor caseload. The findings of this systematic review indicate that where genetic counsellors are utilised in specialist genetic settings, they undertake a significant workload associated with direct patient care and this appears to be acceptable to patients. With the burden on genetic services, there is an argument for the increased use of genetic counsellors in countries where they are under-utilised. In addition, roles undertaken by genetic counsellors in specialist genetic settings could be adapted to integrate genetic counsellors into multidisciplinary teams in other specialisms.

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.

Primary objective The primary objective is to assess the effectiveness of interv entions to improve patient identification, access to and utilis ation of genetic and genomic counselling services when compared to: i) No intervention; ii) Usual or current practice; and iii) Other active intervention. Secondary objective The secondary objective is to explore the resource use and costs associated with interventions aimed at improving patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. We will report on factors that may explain variation in the eff ectiveness of interventions aimed at improving patient iden tification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Another secondary objective is to explore how interventions w hich target improved patient identification, access to and utili sation of genetic and genomic counselling services affect the subsequent appropriate use of health services for the prevention or early detection of disease. It is also possible that the genetic counselling interaction itself will contribute to the possible use of preventative services.

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 24 September 2014; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.190.