Search

Background Human embryonic stem cells (hESC) as a source for the development of advanced therapy medicinal products are considered for treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Research has shown promising results and opened an avenue of great importance for patients who currently lack a disease modifying therapy. The use of hESC has given rise to moral concerns and been the focus of often heated debates on the moral status of human embryos. Approval for marketing is still pending. Objective To Investigate the perspectives and concerns of patients with PD, patients being the directly concerned stakeholders in the ethical discussion. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews related to this new therapy in seventeen patients from two Swedish cities. Results The participants expressed various interests related to the use of human embryos for development of medicinal therapies; however, overall, they were positive towards the use of hESC for treatment of PD. It was deemed important that the donating woman or couple made the choice to donate embryos voluntarily. Furthermore, there were concerns that the industry does not always prioritise the patient over profit; thus, transparency was seen as important.

Objective: To empirically test the impact of allowing respondents time to think (TTT) about their choice options on the outcomes of a discrete choice experiments (DCE). Methods: In total, 613 participants of the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS) completed a DCE questionnaire that measured their preferences for receiving secondary findings of a genetic test. A Bayesian D-efficient design with 60 choice tasks divided over 4 questionnaires was used. Each choice task contained 2 scenarios with 4 attributes: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunities, and effectiveness of prevention. Respondents were randomly allocated to the TTT or no TTT (NTTT) sample. Latent class models (LCMs) were estimated to determine attribute-level values and their relative importance. In addition, choice certainty, attribute-level interpretation, choice consistency, and potential uptake rates were compared between samples. Results: In the TTT sample, 92% of the respondents (245 of 267) indicated they used the TTT period to (1) read the information they received (72%) and (2) discuss with their family (24%). In both samples, respondents were very certain about their choices. A 3-class LCM was fitted for both samples. Preference reversals were found for 3 of the 4 attributes in one class in the NTTT sample (34% class-membership probability). Relative importance scores of the attributes differed between the 2 samples, and significant scale effects indicating higher choice consistency in TTT sample were found. Conclusions: Offering respondents TTT influences decision making and preferences. Developers of future DCEs regarding complex health-related decisions are advised to consider this approach to enhance the validity of the elicited preferences.

Purpose: This study aims to determine research participants’ preferences for receiving genetic risk information when participating in a scientific study that uses genome sequencing. Methods: A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent to 650 research participants (response rate 60.5%). Four attributes were selected for the questionnaire: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunity, and effectiveness of the preventive measure. Panel mixed logit models were used to determine attribute level estimates and the heterogeneity in preferences. Relative importance of the attribute and the predicted uptake for different information scenarios were calculated from the estimates. In addition, this study estimates predicted uptake for receiving genetic risk information in different scenarios. Results: All characteristics influenced research participants’ willingness to receive genetic risk information. The most important characteristic was the effectiveness of the preventive opportunity. Predicted uptake ranged between 28% and 98% depending on what preventive opportunities and levels of effectiveness were presented. Conclusion: Information about an effective preventive measure was most important for participants. They valued that attribute twice as much as the other attributes. Therefore, when there is an effective preventive measure, risk communication can be less concerned with the magnitude of the probability of developing disease.

It is well known that research participants want to receive genetic risk information that is about high risks, serious diseases and potential preventive measures. The aim of this study was to explore, by qualitative means, something less well known: how do healthy research participants themselves make sense of genetic risk information?A phenomenographic approach was chosen to explore research participants' understanding and assessment of genetic risk. We conducted four focus-group (N=16) interviews with participants in a research programme designed to identify biomarkers for cardiopulmonary disease.Among the research participants, we found four ways of understanding genetic risk: as a binary concept, as an explanation, as revealing who I am (knowledge of oneself) and as affecting life ahead.Research participants tend to understand genetic risk as a binary concept. This does not necessarily imply a misunderstanding of, or an irrational approach to, genetic risk. Rather, it may have a heuristic function in decision-making.Risk communication may be enhanced by tailoring the communication to the participants' own lay conceptions. For example, researchers and counselors should address risk in binary terms, maybe looking out for how individual participants search for threshold figures.