2019
DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1209
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic health professionals' experiences returning results from diagnostic genomic sequencing to patients

Abstract: Genomic sequencing (GS), including exome, genome, and condition-specific panels, is now well embedded into clinical care, and its implementation has brought many benefits. Use of GS is increasing the rate of identification of genetic causes of diseases, with 'hit rates' using exome/genome sequencing ranging from 25% to 57%, depending on the genetic condition being investigated and the selection criteria used (

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
(43 reference statements)
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Research has been geared towards how to organise the ongoing implementation successfully and responsibly and to explore the social utility of these techniques. The focus in the literature is often placed on challenges related to data sharing and privacy, how to achieve ‘true’ informed consent and choice, understandability of the tests and their results and what benefits the results bring to clinical practice and patients (e.g., Bertier et al., 2016; Dove et al., 2019; Horton & Lucassen, 2019; Vears et al., 2019). A more limited amount of work has explored the impact of these new technologies on the experiences and organisation of clinical practice (Arora et al., 2016; Bourret & Cambrosio, 2019; Vears et al., 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research has been geared towards how to organise the ongoing implementation successfully and responsibly and to explore the social utility of these techniques. The focus in the literature is often placed on challenges related to data sharing and privacy, how to achieve ‘true’ informed consent and choice, understandability of the tests and their results and what benefits the results bring to clinical practice and patients (e.g., Bertier et al., 2016; Dove et al., 2019; Horton & Lucassen, 2019; Vears et al., 2019). A more limited amount of work has explored the impact of these new technologies on the experiences and organisation of clinical practice (Arora et al., 2016; Bourret & Cambrosio, 2019; Vears et al., 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many clinical geneticists find that VUS is quite difficult to explain, and many patients may not be able to grasp the concept. There are concerns regarding the potential negative repercussions of non-clinical geneticists misinterpreting the significance of VUS [ 4 ].…”
Section: Genetic Counseling Status and Trendsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is in line with ethical debates related to how personalized medicine is creating a more patient‐centered approach to health care, 40 highlighting the need for sufficient information and understanding to enable a patient to make an informed decision. Based on interviews with genetic health care professionals, patients’ reactions to receiving a genetic report that includes a positive molecular diagnosis vary, from patients feeling relieved to being frustrated that a diagnosis does not lead to a (change in) treatment 41 . This strongly indicates the necessity of discussing expectations before testing and including this topic in the informed consent.…”
Section: Concluding Recommendations For Laboratories and Cliniciansmentioning
confidence: 99%