| 1. |
- Biasiotto, Roberta, et al.
(författare)
-
Public Preferences for Digital Health Data Sharing : Discrete Choice Experiment Study in 12 European Countries.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Internet Research. - : JMIR Publications. - 1438-8871. ; 25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: With new technologies, health data can be collected in a variety of different clinical, research, and public health contexts, and then can be used for a range of new purposes. Establishing the public's views about digital health data sharing is essential for policy makers to develop effective harmonization initiatives for digital health data governance at the European level.OBJECTIVE: This study investigated public preferences for digital health data sharing.METHODS: A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to a sample of European residents in 12 European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) from August 2020 to August 2021. Respondents answered whether hypothetical situations of data sharing were acceptable for them. Each hypothetical scenario was defined by 5 attributes ("data collector," "data user," "reason for data use," "information on data sharing and consent," and "availability of review process"), which had 3 to 4 attribute levels each. A latent class model was run across the whole data set and separately for different European regions (Northern, Central, and Southern Europe). Attribute relative importance was calculated for each latent class's pooled and regional data sets.RESULTS: A total of 5015 completed surveys were analyzed. In general, the most important attribute for respondents was the availability of information and consent during health data sharing. In the latent class model, 4 classes of preference patterns were identified. While respondents in 2 classes strongly expressed their preferences for data sharing with opposing positions, respondents in the other 2 classes preferred not to share their data, but attribute levels of the situation could have had an impact on their preferences. Respondents generally found the following to be the most acceptable: a national authority or academic research project as the data user; being informed and asked to consent; and a review process for data transfer and use, or transfer only. On the other hand, collection of their data by a technological company and data use for commercial communication were the least acceptable. There was preference heterogeneity across Europe and within European regions.CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the importance of transparency in data use and oversight of health-related data sharing for European respondents. Regional and intraregional preference heterogeneity for "data collector," "data user," "reason," "type of consent," and "review" calls for governance solutions that would grant data subjects the ability to control their digital health data being shared within different contexts. These results suggest that the use of data without consent will demand weighty and exceptional reasons. An interactive and dynamic informed consent model combined with oversight mechanisms may be a solution for policy initiatives aiming to harmonize health data use across Europe.
|
|
| 2. |
- Borry, Pascal, et al.
(författare)
-
Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 20:7, s. 715-21
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- An increasing number of private companies are now offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing services. Although a lot of attention has been devoted to the regulatory framework of DTC genetic testing services in the USA, only limited information about the regulatory framework in Europe is available. We will report on the situation with regard to the national legislation on DTC genetic testing in seven European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, France, Germany, the United Kingdom). The paper will address whether these countries have legislation that specifically address the issue of DTC genetic testing or have relevant laws that is pertinent to the regulatory control of these services in their countries. The findings show that France, Germany, Portugal and Switzerland have specific legislation that defines that genetic tests can only be carried out by a medical doctor after the provision of sufficient information concerning the nature, meaning and consequences of the genetic test and after the consent of the person concerned. In the Netherlands, some DTC genetic tests could fall under legislation that provides the Minister the right to refuse to provide a license to operate if a test is scientifically unsound, not in accordance with the professional medical practice standards or if the expected benefit is not in balance with the (potential) health risks. Belgium and the United Kingdom allow the provision of DTC genetic tests.
|
|
| 3. |
- Budin-Ljøsne, Isabelle, et al.
(författare)
-
Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants : Is It Feasible in Europe?
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Biopreservation and Biobanking. - : Mary Ann Liebert Inc. - 1947-5535 .- 1947-5543. ; 14:3, s. 241-248
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach.RESULTS: Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process.CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.
|
|
| 4. |
- Carrieri, Daniele, et al.
(författare)
-
Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services : recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 27:2, s. 169-182
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.
|
|
| 5. |
- de Wert, Guido, et al.
(författare)
-
Human germline gene editing : Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Nature Publishing Group. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 26:4, s. 445-449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.
|
|
| 6. |
- de Wert, Guido, et al.
(författare)
-
Human germline gene editing. Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE
- 2018
-
Ingår i: HUMAN REPRODUCTION OPEN. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2399-3529. ; 2018:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding human GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.
|
|
| 7. |
- de Wert, Guido, et al.
(författare)
-
Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5438 .- 1018-4813. ; 29:3, s. 365-377
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that 'actionable' genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings-so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.
|
|
| 8. |
- de Wert, Guido, et al.
(författare)
-
Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing. Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE
- 2018
-
Ingår i: HUMAN REPRODUCTION OPEN. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2399-3529. ; 2018:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, pre-clinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g. gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g. safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
