Search

With the expansion of carrier screening to general preconception and prenatal patient populations, most patients will receive negative results, which we define as indicating <25% risk of having a child with a genetic condition. Because there is limited experience with expanded carrier screening, it is important to understand how receiving negative results affects patients, especially as providers, payers, and policymakers consider whether to offer it. In this mixed‐methods study, we asked preconception patients enrolled in the NextGen study about their expectations and experiences receiving negative expanded carrier screening results. Participants completed surveys at study enrollment (n = 110 women, 51 male partners), after receiving carrier results (n = 100 women, 38 male partners), after receiving secondary findings (n = 98 women, 36 male partners), and 6 months after receiving results (n = 95 women, 28 male partners). We also interviewed a subset of participants 12 to 24 months after receiving results (n = 24 women, 12 male partners). We found minimal negative emotional impact and privacy concerns, increased confidence in reproductive plans, and few changes to health behaviors, although some patients made health decisions based on misunderstandings of their results. These findings suggest that expanded carrier screening causes minimal psychosocial harms, but systems are needed to reduce the risk of misinterpreting results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unclear how the possible effects of genetic research on socially identifiable groups may impact patient willingness to donate biological samples for future genetic studies. Methods: Telephone interviews with patients at 5 academic medical centers in the U.S. examined how patients' beliefs about benefits and harms to ones racial or ethnic group shape decisions to participate in genetic research. Results: Of the 1,113 patients who responded to questions about group harms and benefits, 61% of respondents indicated that potential benefits to their own racial or ethnic group would be a big or moderate part of their decision to donate a sample for genetic research. 63% of black respondents and 57% of white respondents indicated that they were 'very' or 'moderately concerned' about genetic research findings being used to discriminate against people by race or ethnicity. 64% of black and 34% of white respondents reported that their willingness to donate a blood sample would be substantially reduced due to these concerns. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a key factor in many patients' decisions to donate samples for genetic research is how those studies may impact identifiable racial and ethnic groups. Given the importance of these considerations to many patients, our study highlights a need to address patients' concerns about potential group benefits and harms in the design of future research studies and DNA biobanks. Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide guidance on informed consent to clinicians offering cancer susceptibility testing.Participants: The Task Force on Informed Consent is part of the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium (CGSC), whose members were recipients of National Institutes of Health grants to assess the implications of cancer susceptibility testing. The 10 task force members represent a range of relevant backgrounds, including various medical specialties, social science, genetic counseling, and consumer advocacy.Evidence: The CGSC held 3 public meetings from 1994 to 1996. At its first meeting, the task force jointly established a list of topics. The cochairs (G.G. and J.R.B) then developed an outline and assigned each topic to an appropriate writer and reviewer. Writers summarized the literature on their topics and drafted recommendations, which were then revised by the reviewers. The cochairs compiled and edited the entire manuscript. All members were involved in writing this report.Consensus Process: The first draft was distributed to task force members, after which a meeting was held to discuss its content and organization. Consensus was reached by voting. A subsequent draft was presented to the entire CGSC at its third meeting, and comments were incorporated.Conclusions: The task force recommends that informed consent for cancer susceptibility testing be an ongoing process of education and counseling in which (1) providers elicit participant, family, and community values and disclose their own, (2) decision making is shared, (3) the style of information disclosure is individualized, and (4) specific content areas are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the role of genetic testing in screening for hereditary hemochromatosis to help guide clinicians, policymakers, and researchers.Participants: An expert panel was convened on March 3, 1997, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), with expertise in epidemiology, genetics, hepatology, iron overload disorders, molecular biology, public health, and the ethical, legal, and social implications surrounding the discovery and use of genetic information.Evidence: The group reviewed evidence regarding the clinical presentation, natural history, and genetics of hemochromatosis, including current data on the candidate gene for hemochromatosis (HFE) and on the ethical and health policy implications of genetic testing for this disorder.Consensus Process: Consensus was achieved by group discussion confirmed by a voice vote. A draft of the consensus statement was prepared by a writing committee and subsequently reviewed and revised by all members of the expert group over a 1-year period.Conclusions: Genetic testing is not recommended at this time in population-based screening for hereditary hemochromatosis, due to uncertainties about prevalence and penetrance of HFE mutations and the optimal care of asymptomatic people carrying HFE mutations. In addition, use of a genetic screening test raises concerns regarding possible stigmatization and discrimination. Tests for HFE mutations may play a role in confirming the diagnosis of hereditary hemochromatosis in persons with elevated serum iron measures, but even this use is limited by uncertainty about genotype-phenotype correlations. To address these questions, the expert group accorded high priority to population-based research to define the prevalence of HFE mutations, age and sex-related penetrance of different HFE genotypes, interactions between HFE genotypes and environmental modifiers, and psychosocial outcomes of genetic screening for hemochromatosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing literature has explored the ethical obligations and current practices related to sharing aggregate results with research participants. However, no prior work has examined these issues in the context of pragmatic clinical trials. Several characteristics of pragmatic clinical trials may complicate both the ethics and the logistics of sharing aggregate results. Among these characteristics include that pragmatic clinical trials may affect the rights, welfare, and interests of not only patient-subjects but also clinicians, meaning that results may be owed to a broader range of groups than typically considered in other research contexts. In addition, some pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under a waiver of informed consent, meaning sharing results may alert participants that they were enrolled without their consent. This article explores the ethical dimensions that can inform decision-making about sharing aggregate results from pragmatic clinical trials, and provides recommendations for that sharing. A central insight is that healthcare institutions-as key partners for the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials-must also be key partners in decision-making about sharing aggregate pragmatic clinical trial results. We conclude with insights for future research., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Emerging biomarker technologies (e.g., MRI, EEG, digital phenotyping, eye-tracking) have potential to move the identification of autism into the first year of life. We investigated the perspectives of parents about the anticipated utility and impact of predicting later autism diagnosis from a biomarker-based test in infancy., Methods: Parents of infants were interviewed to ascertain receptiveness and perspectives on early (6-12 months) prediction of autism using emerging biomarker technologies. One group had experience parenting an older autistic child (n=30), and the other had no prior autism parenting experience (n=25). Parent responses were analyzed using inductive qualitative coding methods., Results: Almost all parents in both groups were interested in predictive testing for autism, with some stating they would seek testing only if concerned about their infant's development. The primary anticipated advantage of testing was to enable access to earlier intervention. Parents also described the anticipated emotions they would feel in response to test results, actions they might take upon learning their infant was likely to develop autism, attitudes towards predicting a child's future support needs, and the potential impacts of inaccurate prediction., Conclusion: In qualitative interviews, parents of infants with and without prior autism experience shared their anticipated motivations and concerns about predictive testing for autism in the first year of life. The primary reported motivators for testing-to have more time to prepare and intervene early-could be constrained by familial resources and service availability. Implications for ethical communication of results, equitable early intervention, and future research are discussed., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Receipt of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy at an institution different from the primary oncologist's institution is a complex, multistep process. Referral by oncologists plays an important role in the process but may be susceptible to bias., Methods: Oncologists who previously referred patients for CAR-T therapy at 5 pediatric hospitals were sent surveys by email exploring their CAR-T referral practices. Descriptive statistics were generated, and multivariate analyses examined associations among oncologist characteristics, familiarity with CAR-T therapy, and referral practices. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of participants and used thematic analysis to code transcripts., Results: Sixty-eight oncologists completed the survey; 77% expressed being "very familiar" with CAR-T therapy. Hispanic oncologists and oncologists at institutions with 50 or fewer new diagnoses per year were more likely to identify as less familiar with CAR-T therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 64.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45 to 10 452.50, P = .04 and OR = 24.5, 95% CI = 3.3 to 317.3, P = .005, respectively). In total, 38% of respondents considered nonclinical features (compliance, social support, resources, insurance, language, education, and race or ethnicity) influential in referral decisions. Oncologists who were Hispanic and oncologists who had been practicing for 20 or more years were more likely to consider these features significantly influential (OR = 14.52, 95% CI = 1.49 to 358.66, P = .04 and OR = 6.76, 95% CI = 1.18 to 50.5, P = .04). Nine oncologists completed in-depth interviews; common themes included barriers and concerns regarding CAR-T therapy referral, the value of an established relationship with a CAR-T therapy center, and poor communication after CAR-T therapy., Conclusions: Nearly 40% of oncologists consider nonclinical features significantly influential when deciding to refer patients for CAR-T therapy, raising concern for bias in the referral process. Establishing formal partnerships with CAR-T therapy centers may help address physician barriers in referral., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background and Objectives: Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds., Methods: We took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback., Results: Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each., Conclusion: We present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: The parent of a child with profound cognitive disability will have complex decisions to consider throughout the life of their child. An especially complex decision is whether to place a tracheotomy to support the child's airway. The decision may involve the parent wanting a tracheotomy and the clinician advising against this intervention or the clinician recommending a tracheotomy while the parent is opposed to the intervention. This conflict over what is best for the child may lead to a bioethics consult., Objective: The study explores the conflicts that may arise around tracheotomy placements., Research Design: This study is a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients for whom a tracheotomy decision required a bioethics consult., Participants and Research Context: Pediatric patients aged birth to 18 years old with a bioethics consult for a tracheotomy decision conflict between April 2010 and December 2016. A standardized data collection tool was used to review notes entered by the palliative care team, social workers, primary clinical team interim summaries, and the bioethics consult service., Ethical Considerations: The study was reviewed and approved by the medical center's institutional review board., Results: There were 248 clinical bioethics consults during the identified study period. There were 31 consults involving 21 children where the word tracheotomy was mentioned in the consult, and 13 of the 21 consults were for children with profound cognitive disability., Discussion and Conclusion: Clinicians need to be aware of their own biases when discussing a child's prognosis and treatment options while also understanding the parents' values and what the parent might consider to be burdensome in the care of their child and the acceptable burden for the child to experience.

Justice is a core principle in bioethics, and a fair opportunity to achieve health is central to this principle. Racism and other forms of prejudice, discrimination, or bias directed against people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group are known contributors to health inequity, defined as unjust differences in health or access to care. Though hospital-based ethics committees and consultation services routinely address issues of justice that arise in the course of patient care, there is variability in whether and how racism and other causes of health inequities are addressed. In this paper, we describe a novel structure and process for addressing health equity within clinical ethics consultation. In addition, we discuss the barriers and challenges to its success, many of which are rooted in the identities, norms and assumptions that underlie traditional clinical ethics consultation. We offer pragmatic recommendations and conclude with unresolved questions that remain as we work to adapt the structure of a clinical ethics consultation service to improve attention to issues of health equity and promote anti-racism in patient care and institutional policy., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Ethical responsibilities for monitoring and responding to signals of behavioral and mental health risk (such as suicidal ideation, opioid use disorder, or depression) in general clinical research have been described; however, pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) raise new contextual challenges., Methods: We use our experience with the PRISM (Pragmatic and Implementation Studies for the Management of Pain to Reduce Opioid Prescribing) program, which is a component of the Helping End Addiction Long-Term (HEAL) Initiative, to provide examples of research studying nonpharmacologic interventions for pain that collect sensitive data. Members of the PRISM Ethics and Regulatory Core and Patient-Centered Outcome Core Working Group discussed and refined considerations and recommendations., Results: PCT researchers can help identify the extent of their ethical obligations to monitor and respond to signals of potential behavioral and mental health risks by understanding and aligning stakeholder expectations; considering characteristics of the trial and study population; defining triggers, thresholds, and responsibilities for action; identifying appropriate response mechanisms and capabilities; integrating responses with health systems; and addressing privacy. Based on such an assessment, researchers should proactively identify if, when, and how a response will be triggered. Doing so necessitates that stakeholders understand their roles in managing such risks. Finally, consent forms and other study disclosures should clearly state what if any responses might be taken., Conclusion: Early and ongoing bi-directional communication with relevant stakeholders is critical to identifying and meeting the ethical challenges for PCTs when managing and responding to behavioral and mental health data that potentially signal elevated risk to individuals., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe the training and early implementation of the ARIA model of genetic counseling (Accessible, Relational, Inclusive, Actionable)., Methods: As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, an interdisciplinary workgroup developed the ARIA curriculum and trained genetic counselors to return exome sequencing results using the ARIA model., Curriculum: The ARIA curriculum includes didactic elements, discussion, readings, role plays, and observations of usual care genetic counseling sessions. The ARIA model provides the skills and strategies needed for genetic counseling to be accessible to all patients, regardless of prior knowledge or literacy level; involves appropriate psychological and social counseling without overwhelming the patient with information; and leaves the patient with clear and actionable next steps., Conclusion: With sufficient training and practice, the ARIA model appears to be feasible, with promise for ensuring that genetic counselors' communication is accessible, relational, inclusive and actionable for the diverse patients participating in genomic medicine., Practice Implications: ARIA offers a coherent set of principles and strategies for effective communication with patients of all literacy levels and outlines specific techniques to practice and incorporate these skills into routine practice. The ARIA model could be integrated into genetic counseling training programs and practice, making genetic counseling more accessible and meaningful for all patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no declarations of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 are common life-limiting conditions associated with major disabilities. Many parents have described conflictual relationships with clinicians, but positive and adverse experiences of families with healthcare providers have not been well described., Aim: (1) To investigate parental experiences with clinicians and (2) to provide practical recommendations and behaviors clinicians could emulate to avoid conflict., Design: Participants were asked to describe their best and worse experiences, as well as supportive clinicians they met. The results were analyzed using mixed methods., Setting/participants: Parents of children with trisomy 13 and 18 who were part of online social support networks. A total of 503 invitations were sent, and 332 parents completed the questionnaire about 272 children., Results: The majority of parents (72%) had met a supportive clinician. When describing clinicians who changed their lives, the overarching theme, present in 88% of answers, was trust. Parents trusted clinicians when they felt he or she cared and valued their child, their family, and made them feel like good parents (69%), had appropriate knowledge (66%), and supported them and gave them realistic hope (42%). Many (42%) parents did not want to make-or be part of-life-and-death decisions. Parents gave specific examples of supportive behaviors that can be adopted by clinicians. Parents also described adverse experiences, generally leading to conflicts and lack of trust., Conclusion: Realistic and compassionate support of parents living with children with trisomy 13 and 18 is possible. Adversarial interactions that lead to distrust and conflicts can be avoided. Many supportive behaviors that inspire trust can be emulated.

Purpose: As new genetic services become available, their implementation in safety-net settings must be studied., Methods: We interviewed stakeholders (patients and primary care clinicians) from federally qualified health centers to discuss the utility, acceptability, and priority of new genetic services. We presented scenarios tailored for each audience describing carrier testing, diagnostic testing for a developmental delay, and hereditary cancer syndrome testing. We summarized transcripts using the framework method and compared patient and clinician perspectives., Results: Clinicians questioned the relevance and priority of genetic services. Hereditary cancer testing was perceived most favorably by clinicians, who focused on actionability, cost, and access to downstream care. Patients stated that access to genetic services was important and that there should be parity across safety-net and higher-resourced settings., Conclusions: Genetic services with clear clinical impact are more acceptable to clinicians in safety-net clinics. Clinicians may be underestimating patients' interest in expanded genetic services.

Advances in sequencing technologies permit the analysis of a larger selection of genes for preconception carrier screening. The study was designed as a sequential carrier screen using genome sequencing to analyze 728 gene-disorder pairs for carrier and medically actionable conditions in 131 women and their partners (n = 71) who were planning a pregnancy. We report here on the clinical laboratory results from this expanded carrier screening program. Variants were filtered and classified using the latest American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guideline; only pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were confirmed by orthologous methods before being reported. Novel missense variants were classified as variants of uncertain significance. We reported 304 variants in 202 participants. Twelve carrier couples (12/71 couples tested) were identified for common conditions; eight were carriers for hereditary hemochromatosis. Although both known and novel variants were reported, 48% of all reported variants were missense. For novel splice-site variants, RNA-splicing assays were performed to aid in classification. We reported ten copy-number variants and five variants in non-coding regions. One novel variant was reported in F8, associated with hemophilia A; prenatal testing showed that the male fetus harbored this variant and the neonate suffered a life-threatening hemorrhage which was anticipated and appropriately managed. Moreover, 3% of participants had variants that were medically actionable. Compared with targeted mutation screening, genome sequencing improves the sensitivity of detecting clinically significant variants. While certain novel variant interpretation remains challenging, the ACMG guidelines are useful to classify variants in a healthy population., (Copyright © 2018 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With the expansion of carrier screening to general preconception and prenatal patient populations, most patients will receive negative results, which we define as indicating <25% risk of having a child with a genetic condition. Because there is limited experience with expanded carrier screening, it is important to understand how receiving negative results affects patients, especially as providers, payers, and policymakers consider whether to offer it. In this mixed-methods study, we asked preconception patients enrolled in the NextGen study about their expectations and experiences receiving negative expanded carrier screening results. Participants completed surveys at study enrollment (n = 110 women, 51 male partners), after receiving carrier results (n = 100 women, 38 male partners), after receiving secondary findings (n = 98 women, 36 male partners), and 6 months after receiving results (n = 95 women, 28 male partners). We also interviewed a subset of participants 12 to 24 months after receiving results (n = 24 women, 12 male partners). We found minimal negative emotional impact and privacy concerns, increased confidence in reproductive plans, and few changes to health behaviors, although some patients made health decisions based on misunderstandings of their results. These findings suggest that expanded carrier screening causes minimal psychosocial harms, but systems are needed to reduce the risk of misinterpreting results., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Individual genome sequencing results are valued by patients in ways distinct from clinical utility. Such outcomes have been described as components of "personal utility," a concept that broadly encompasses patient-endorsed benefits, that is operationally defined as non-clinical outcomes. No empirical delineation of these outcomes has been reported., Aim: To address this gap, we administered a Delphi survey to adult participants in a National Institute of Health (NIH) clinical exome study to extract the most highly endorsed outcomes constituting personal utility., Materials and Methods: Forty research participants responded to a Delphi survey to rate 35 items identified by a systematic literature review of personal utility., Results: Two rounds of ranking resulted in 24 items that represented 14 distinct elements of personal utility. Elements most highly endorsed by participants were: increased self-knowledge, knowledge of "the condition," altruism, and anticipated coping., Discussion: Our findings represent the first systematic effort to delineate elements of personal utility that may be used to anticipate participant expectation and inform genetic counseling prior to sequencing. The 24 items reported need to be studied further in additional clinical genome sequencing studies to assess generalizability in other populations. Further research will help to understand motivations and to predict the meaning and use of results., (Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

In May 2016, the Eshelman School of Pharmacy at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened the PharmSci conference to address the topic of "methodological and ethical issues in pediatric medication safety research." A multidisciplinary group of experts representing a diverse array of perspectives, including those of the US Food and Drug Administration, children's hospitals, and academia, identified important considerations for pediatric medication safety research and opportunities to advance the field. This executive summary describes current challenges that clinicians and researchers encounter related to pediatric medication safety research and identifies innovative and ethically sound methodologies to address these challenges to improve children's health. This article addresses 5 areas: (1) pediatric drug development and drug trials; (2) conducting comparative effectiveness research in pediatric populations; (3) child and parent engagement on study teams; (4) improving communication with children and parents; and (5) assessing child-reported outcomes and adverse drug events., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Dr Gonzalez receives support from industry (Cempra, Inc, and Jacobus Pharmaceutical Company, Inc) for drug development in adults and children; the other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Purpose: There is debate within the genetics community about the optimal term to describe genetic variants unrelated to the test indication but potentially important for health. Given the lack of consensus and the importance of adopting terminology that promotes effective clinical communication, we sought the opinion of clinical genetics patients., Methods: Surveys and focus groups with two patient populations were conducted. Eighty-eight survey participants were asked to rank four terms according to how well each describes results unrelated to the test indication: incidental findings, secondary findings, additional findings, and ancillary findings. Participants in six focus groups were guided through a free-thought exercise to describe the desired attributes of such a term and then asked to formulate the best term to represent this concept., Results: The term additional findings had the most first-choice rankings by survey participants, followed by secondary findings, incidental findings, and ancillary findings. Most focus group participants preferred the term additional findings; they also gave reasons why other terms were not optimal., Conclusion: Additional findings was preferred because it was more neutral and accessible than other terms currently in use. Patient perceptions and comprehension will be framed by the terminology used by healthcare providers. Thus, patient opinions should be considered by medical genetics professionals.Genet Med 19 2, 176-181.

The idea of patient advocacy as a function of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) has been debated in the bioethics literature. In particular, opinion is divided as to whether patient advocacy inherently is in conflict with the other duties of the ethics consultant, especially that of impartial mediator. The debate is complicated, however, because patient advocacy is not uniformly conceptualized. This article examines two literatures that are crucial to understanding patient advocacy in the context of bioethical deliberations: the CEC literature and the literature on advocacy in the social work profession. A review of this literature identifies four distinct approaches to patient advocacy that are relevant to CEC: (1) the best interest approach, (2) the patient rights approach, (3) the representational approach, and (4) the empowerment approach. After providing a clearer understanding of the varied meanings of patient advocacy in the context of CEC, we assert that patient advocacy is not inherently inconsistent with the function of the ethics consultant and the CEC process. Finally, we provide a framework to help consultants determine if they should adopt an advocacy role., (Copyright 2016 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

As genome sequencing technology advances, research is needed to guide decision-making about what results can or should be offered to patients in different clinical settings. We conducted three focus groups with individuals who had prior preconception genetic testing experience to explore perceived advantages and disadvantages of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening, compared to usual care. Using a discussion guide, a trained qualitative moderator facilitated the audio-recorded focus groups. Sixteen individuals participated. Thematic analysis of transcripts started with a grounded approach and subsequently focused on participants' perceptions of the value of genetic information. Analysis uncovered two orientations toward genomic preconception carrier screening: "certain" individuals desiring all possible screening information; and "hesitant" individuals who were more cautious about its value. Participants revealed valuable information about barriers to screening: fear/anxiety about results; concerns about the method of returning results; concerns about screening necessity; and concerns about partner participation. All participants recommended offering choice to patients to enhance the value of screening and reduce barriers. Overall, two groups of likely users of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening demonstrated different perceptions of the advantages or disadvantages of screening, suggesting tailored approaches to education, consent, and counseling may be warranted with each group.

Objective: This interview study explored clinicians' perspectives and parents' decision making about children's participation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) clinical trials., Methods: Data from semi-structured interviews conducted with clinicians and parents in U.S. or Canada were assessed using thematic analysis., Results: Eleven clinicians involved in ten trials and fifteen parents involved in six trials were interviewed. Parents described benefit-risk assessments using information from advocacy, peers, professionals, and sponsors. Strong influence was attributed to the progressive nature of DMD. Most expected direct benefit. Few considered the possibility of trial failure. Most made decisions to participate before the informed consent (IC) process, but none-the-less perceived informed choice with little to lose for potential gain. Clinicians described more influence on parental decisions than attributed by parents. Clinicians felt responsible to facilitate IC while maintaining hope. Both clinicians and parents reported criticisms about the IC process and regulatory barriers., Conclusions: The majority of parents described undertaking benefit-risk assessments that led to informed choices that offered psychological and potential disease benefits. Parents' high expectations influenced their decisions while also reflecting optimism. Clinicians felt challenged in balancing parents' expectations and likely outcomes. Prognosis-related pressures coupled with decision making prior to IC suggest an obligation to ensure educational materials are understandable and accurate, and to consider an expanded notion of IC timeframes. Anticipatory guidance about potential trial failure might facilitate parents' deliberations while aiding clinicians in moderating overly-optimistic motivations. Regulators and industry should appreciate special challenges in progressive disorders, where doing nothing was equated with doing harm., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Genomic sequencing is being rapidly introduced into pediatric clinical practice. The results of sequencing are distinctive for their complexity and subsequent challenges of interpretation for generalist and specialist pediatricians, parents, and patients. Pediatricians therefore need to prepare for the professionally responsible disclosure of sequencing results to parents and patients and guidance of parents and patients in the interpretation and use of these results, including managing uncertain data. This article provides an ethical framework to guide and evaluate the professionally responsible disclosure of the results of genomic sequencing in pediatric practice. The ethical framework comprises 3 core concepts of pediatric ethics: the best interests of the child standard, parental surrogate decision-making, and pediatric assent. When recommending sequencing, pediatricians should explain the nature of the proposed test, its scope and complexity, the categories of results, and the concept of a secondary or incidental finding. Pediatricians should obtain the informed permission of parents and the assent of mature adolescents about the scope of sequencing to be performed and the return of results., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)