Australian public perspectives on genomic newborn screening: which conditions should be included?

BACKGROUND: Implementing genomic sequencing into newborn screening programs allows for significant expansion in the number and scope of conditions detected. We sought to explore public preferences and perspectives on which conditions to include in genomic newborn screening (gNBS). METHODS: We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age, using social media, and invited them to participate in online focus groups. RESULTS: Seventy-five members of the public aged 23-72 participated in one of fifteen focus groups. Participants agreed that if prioritisation of conditions was necessary, childhood-onset conditions were more important to include than later-onset conditions. Despite the purpose of the focus groups being to elicit public preferences, participants wanted to defer to others, such as health professionals or those with a lived experience of each condition, to make decisions about which conditions to include. Many participants saw benefit in including conditions with no available treatment. Participants agreed that gNBS should be fully publicly funded. CONCLUSION: How many and which conditions are included in a gNBS program will be a complex decision requiring detailed assessment of benefits and costs alongside public and professional engagement. Our study provides support for implementing gNBS for treatable childhood-onset conditions.

Prospective cohort study of genomic newborn screening: BabyScreen+ pilot study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a highly successful public health programme that uses biochemical and other assays to screen for severe but treatable childhood-onset conditions. Introducing genomic sequencing into NBS programmes increases the range of detectable conditions but raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence from prospectively ascertained cohorts is required to guide policy and future implementation. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate a genomic NBS (gNBS) pilot programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BabyScreen+ study will pilot gNBS in three phases. In the preimplementation phase, study materials, including education resources, decision support and data collection tools, will be designed. Focus groups and key informant interviews will also be undertaken to inform delivery of the study and future gNBS programmes. During the implementation phase, we will prospectively recruit birth parents in Victoria, Australia, to screen 1000 newborns for over 600 severe, treatable, childhood-onset conditions. Clinically accredited whole genome sequencing will be performed following standard NBS using the same sample. High chance results will be returned by genetic healthcare professionals, with follow-on genetic and other confirmatory testing and referral to specialist services as required. The postimplementation phase will evaluate the feasibility of gNBS as the primary aim, and assess ethical, implementation, psychosocial and health economic factors to inform future service delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project received ethics approval from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023, HREC/90929/RCHM-2022 and HREC/91392/RCHM-2022. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, and through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Predictive and Presymptomatic Genetic Testing in Adults and Children.

This Position Statement provides guidelines for health professionals who work with individuals and families seeking predictive genetic testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests. It presents the major practical, psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in adults who have the capacity to make a decision, children and young people who lack capacity, and adults living with reduced or fluctuating cognitive capacity.Predictive Testing Recommendations: (1) Predictive testing in adults, young people and children should only be offered with pretest genetic counseling, and the option of post-test genetic counseling. (2) An individual considering whether to have a predictive test should be supported to make an autonomous and informed decision. Regarding Children and Young People: (1) Predictive testing should only be offered to children and young people for conditions where there is likely to be a direct medical benefit to them through surveillance, use of prevention strategies, or other medical interventions in the immediate future. (2) Where symptoms are likely to develop in childhood, in the absence of direct medical benefit from this knowledge, genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should discuss whether undertaking predictive testing is the best course of action for the child and the family as a whole. (3) Where symptoms are likely to develop in adulthood, the default position should be to postpone predictive testing until the young person achieves the capacity to make an autonomous and informed decision. This is applicable regardless of whether there is some action that can be taken in adulthood.

Clinician perspectives on policy approaches to genetic risk disclosure in families.

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication.

Australian Public Perspectives on Genomic Newborn Screening: Risks, Benefits, and Preferences for Implementation.

Recent dramatic reductions in the timeframe in which genomic sequencing can deliver results means its application in time-sensitive screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is becoming a reality. As genomic NBS (gNBS) programs are developed around the world, there is an increasing need to address the ethical and social issues that such initiatives raise. This study therefore aimed to explore the Australian public's perspectives and values regarding key gNBS characteristics and preferences for service delivery. We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age via social media; 75 people aged 23-72 participated in 1 of 15 focus groups. Participants were generally supportive of introducing genomic sequencing into newborn screening, with several stating that the adoption of such revolutionary and beneficial technology was a moral obligation. Participants consistently highlighted receiving an early diagnosis as the leading benefit, which was frequently linked to the potential for early treatment and intervention, or access to other forms of assistance, such as peer support. Informing parents about the test during pregnancy was considered important. This study provides insights into the Australian public's views and preferences to inform the delivery of a gNBS program in the Australian context.

Australian public perspectives on genomic data governance: responsibility, regulation, and logistical considerations.

Genomic sequencing generates huge volumes of data, which may be collected or donated to form large genomic databases. Such information can be stored for future use, either for the data donor themselves or by researchers to help improve our understanding of the genetic basis of disease. Creating datasets of this magnitude and diversity is only possible if patients, their families, and members of the public worldwide share their data. However, there is no consensus on the best technical approach to data sharing that also minimises risks to individuals and exploration of stakeholders' views on aspects of genomic data governance models-the ways genomic data is stored, managed, shared and used-has been minimal. To address this need, we conducted focus groups with 39 members of the Australian public exploring their views and preferences for different aspects of genomic data governance models. We found that consent and control were essential to participants, as they wanted the option to choose who had access to their data and for what purposes. Critically, participants wanted a trustworthy body to enforce regulation of data storage, sharing and usage. While participants recognised the importance of data accessibility, they also expressed a strong desire for data security. Finally, financial responsibility for data storage raised concerns for inequity as well as organisations and individuals using data in ethically contentious ways to generate profit. Our findings highlight some of the trade-offs that need to be considered in the development of genomic data governance systems.

Ethics of artificial intelligence in prenatal and pediatric genomic medicine.

This paper examines the ethics of introducing emerging forms of artificial intelligence (AI) into prenatal and pediatric genomic medicine. Application of genomic AI to these early life settings has not received much attention in the ethics literature. We focus on three contexts: (1) prenatal genomic sequencing for possible fetal abnormalities, (2) rapid genomic sequencing for critically ill children, and (3) reanalysis of genomic data obtained from children for diagnostic purposes. The paper identifies and discusses various ethical issues in the possible application of genomic AI in these settings, especially as they relate to concepts of beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, justice, transparency, accountability, privacy, and trust. The examination will inform the ethically sound introduction of genomic AI in early human life.

The Parliamentary Inquiry into Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 in Australia: A Qualitative Analysis.

Recently, Australia became the second jurisdiction worldwide to legalize the use of mitochondrial donation technology. The Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 allows individuals with a family history of mitochondrial disease to access assisted reproductive techniques that prevent the inheritance of mitochondrial disease. Using inductive content analysis, we assessed submissions sent to the Senate Committee as part of a programme of scientific inquiry and public consultation that informed drafting of the Bill. These submissions discussed a range of bioethical and legal considerations of central importance to the political debate. Significantly, submissions from those with a first-hand experience of mitochondrial disease, including clinicians and those with a family history of mitochondrial disease, were in strong support of this legislation. Those in support of the Bill commended the two-staged approach and rigorous licencing requirements as part of the Bill's implementation strategy. Submissions which outlined arguments against the legislation either opposed the use of these techniques in general or opposed aspects of the implementation strategy in Australia. These findings offer a window into the ethical arguments and perspectives that matter most to those Australians who took part in the Senate inquiry into mitochondrial donation. The insights garnered from these submissions may be used to help refine policy and guidelines as the field progresses.

Dealing with ambivalence in the practice of advanced genetic healthcare: towards an ethical choreography.

The implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in diagnostic practice has stimulated ongoing debates on how to construct and perform "good" genomic care. Our multi-sited qualitative fieldwork at two large European centres for human genetics (CHGs) revealed tangible ambivalence in beliefs, norms, and actions in the enactment of NGS practices across sites stemming from differing expectations, interests, demands, and tensions. First, ambivalence was present around the boundaries of clinical diagnostic genetic care. The overlap between research and clinical work and diagnostics and screening led to ambivalence around "best" practices and norms concerning whom to offer NGS testing and how far to take testing. Secondly, the clinical value of NGS results, especially VUS and unsolicited findings, was ambivalently valued, resulting in an inconsistent approach towards these types of findings. Thirdly, ambivalence was recognized in applying guidelines in the reality of clinical practice. The ambivalence we encountered was often not made explicit or acknowledged, causing a failure to benefit from its possibility to encourage reflexivity and change. We propose to facilitate a more explicit ethical choreography [27], where ethics and science are developed iteratively whilst welcoming different perspectives and disciplines. Pulling experiences and practices of ambivalence into the light can help to understand the points of tension in the values and internal logic in care practices within the CHGs and facilitate a more informed, transparent, and consciously chosen direction for genetic care.

Are We Ready for Whole Population Genomic Sequencing of Asymptomatic Newborns?

The introduction of genomic sequencing technologies into routine newborn screening programs in some form is not only inevitable but also already occurring in some settings. The question is therefore not "if" but "when and how" genomic newborn screening (GNBS) should be implemented. In April 2022, the Centre for Ethics of Paediatric Genomics held a one-day symposium exploring ethical issues relating to the use of genomic sequencing in a range of clinical settings. This review article synthesises the panel discussion and presents both the potential benefits of wide-scale implementation of genomic newborn screening, as well as its practical and ethical issues, including obtaining appropriate consent, and health system implications. A more in-depth understanding of the barriers associated with implementing genomic newborn screening is critical to the success of GNBS programs, both from a practical perspective and also in order to maintain public trust in an important public health initiative.

Two-step offer and return of multiple types of additional genomic findings to families after ultrarapid trio genomic testing in the acute care setting: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3-6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals' perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally.

Disclosure of genetic risk in the family: A survey of the Flemish general population.

OBJECTIVES: Results from genomic sequencing often have implications not just for patients but also for their relatives. To date, there are no studies in Belgium exploring whether potential relatives would want to be informed of a genetic risk in the family and their preferences on different approaches to disclosure. METHODS: We surveyed the attitudes of the Flemish general population (n = 407) towards receiving genetic information from their family members, including attitudes towards breaches in confidentiality, preferences for who communicates genetic risk and how the information is communicated, and policy approaches to nondisclosure. RESULTS: Most participants wanted to be informed of their genetic risk and receive genetic testing to confirm their diagnosis. Most preferred to be informed of genetic risk by a close family member, but that when given the choice between a distant family member and a clinician, most participants preferred to be contacted by a clinician. CONCLUSION: In Belgium there is currently no clear legal pathway for clinicians to directly initiate contact with at-risk relatives, but the responses from members of the Flemish population analyzed in this study indicate that this approach to disclosure of genetic risk deserves further consideration. Our findings indicate that the general population would support legislation allowing clinicians to inform relatives even in cases where the patient did not want to inform them. As this is not currently allowed in Belgium, policy alternatives should be considered.

Rapid Genomic Testing in Intensive Care: Health Professionals' Perspectives on Ethical Challenges.

Ultra-rapid genomic sequencing (urGS) is increasingly used in neonatal and pediatric intensive care settings (NICU/PICU), demonstrating high diagnostic and clinical utility. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HPs) and the challenges raised by urGS, particularly when making treatment decisions. Four focus groups and two interviews were conducted with HPs who had experience using urGS in NICU/PICU. Inductive content analysis was used to analyze the data. Nineteen HPs participated overall (eight clinical geneticists, nine genetic counselors, and two intensivists). One challenging area of practice identified by HPs was setting realistic expectations for outcomes of urGS among HPs and families. HPs reported modifying pre-test counseling to include life-limiting diagnoses as a possible test outcome and felt concerned about the timing of the test and its impact on parent-child bonding. UrGS results of uncertain prognostic significance posed considerable challenges. Moral distress arose when families and HPs were misaligned regarding treatment goals following the urGS diagnosis. We identified areas of practice that remain ethically challenging for HPs using urGS in the NICU/PICU. HPs experiences of using urGS in the NICU/PICU could inform specialized training in withdrawal of treatment decision making for the genomics workforce.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Genetic Carrier Testing for Recessive Conditions.

This Position Statement provides guidelines to assist all health professionals who receive requests for carrier testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests.In this Statement, the term 'carrier testing' refers to genetic testing in an individual to determine whether they have inherited a pathogenic variant associated with an autosomal or X-linked recessive condition previously identified in a blood relative. Carrier testing recommendations: (1) Carrier testing should only be performed with the individual's knowledge and consent; (2) An individual considering (for themselves, or on behalf of another) whether to have a carrier test should be supported to make an informed decision; (3) The mode of inheritance, the individual's personal experience with the condition, and the healthcare setting in which the test is being performed should be considered when determining whether carrier testing should be offered by a genetic health professional. Regarding children and young people: Unless there is direct medical benefit in the immediate future, the default position should be to postpone carrier testing until the child or young person can be supported to make an informed decision. There may be some specific situations where it is appropriate to facilitate carrier testing in children and young people (see section in this article). In such cases, testing should only be offered with pre- and post-test genetic counseling in which genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should explore the rationale for testing and the interests of the child and the family.

A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context.

An increasing number of European research projects return, or plan to return, individual genomic research results (IRR) to participants. While data access is a data subject's right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many legal and ethical guidelines allow or require participants to receive personal data generated in research, the practice of returning results is not straightforward and raises several practical and ethical issues. Existing guidelines focusing on return of IRR are mostly project-specific, only discuss which results to return, or were developed outside Europe. To address this gap, we analysed existing normative documents identified online using inductive content analysis. We used this analysis to develop a checklist of steps to assist European researchers considering whether to return IRR to participants. We then sought feedback on the checklist from an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (clinicians, clinical researchers, population-based researchers, biobank managers, ethicists, lawyers and policy makers) to refine the checklist. The checklist outlines seven major components researchers should consider when determining whether, and how, to return results to adult research participants: 1) Decide which results to return; 2) Develop a plan for return of results; 3) Obtain participant informed consent; 4) Collect and analyse data; 5) Confirm results; 6) Disclose research results; 7) Follow-up and monitor. Our checklist provides a clear outline of the steps European researchers can follow to develop ethical and sustainable result return pathways within their own research projects. Further legal analysis is required to ensure this checklist complies with relevant domestic laws.

Offering and Returning Secondary Findings in the Context of Exome Sequencing for Hearing Loss: Clinicians' Views and Experiences.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate regarding whether and under which circumstances secondary findings (SF) should be offered in the pediatric context. Although studies have examined patient perspectives on receiving SF, little research has been conducted examining the experiences of clinicians offering SF to parents of newborns receiving genomic sequencing for a recently diagnosed medical condition. METHODS: To address this, we conducted qualitative interviews exploring the views and experiences of 12 clinicians who offered SF to parents of infants who had diagnostic exome sequencing (ES) to identify the cause of their hearing loss. Interviews explored clinicians' accounts of parents' choices and decision-making about receiving SF, their views on whether and when to offer SF, their experiences returning SF, and any ethical challenges they encountered. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians reported parents who declined all SF often felt finding out about future conditions unrelated to their child's hearing loss may be unhelpful, or even harmful, or were overwhelmed by their child's diagnosis. Clinicians also reported that some parents chose SF because they felt obliged to, even if they did not want to receive them. They explained that while some parents experienced decision-making regarding SF as positive, for others, this process was challenging or distressing. While clinicians generally agreed SF should be offered, mainly to promote parental choice, most felt SF should be offered after disclosing diagnostic results, primarily to avoid overwhelming parents. Clinicians encountered several ethical challenges, including balancing parental autonomy with non-maleficence, wanting to report or not report certain SF, and questioning whether parents can make an autonomous choice regarding SF. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings, which are novel as they relate to parents of young infants with a recent diagnosis of hearing loss, add new insights into clinicians' and parents' decision-making regarding SF in pediatrics.

Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on the ethical and practical issues associated with genomic newborn screening.

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a successful public health initiative that seeks to identify serious, treatable medical conditions. The increasing use of genomic sequencing (GS) in a wide range of medical settings has reignited the discussion on whether GS can and should be integrated into NBS. Yet, the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Australia on the ethical and practical issues associated with the implementation of genomic newborn screening (GNBS) are underexplored. To address this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 Australian HCPs with clinical or policy experience in NBS and/or GS to explore their perspectives on the ethical, social, and practical issues raised by integrating GS into NBS. Interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis. When asked whether GS should be incorporated into NBS, HCPs did not feel it was currently appropriate but there was a strong consensus it may be implemented within the next decade. However, HCPs had differing perspectives on what conditions should be included and how to best handle the volume of data generated from GNBS. Our findings have important implications for determining at what point and how genomics can be integrated into NBS. The differing views expressed amongst HCPs suggest that further research is needed to explore the reasons behind this. Importantly, our participants highlighted a potential role for genetic counselors in the implementation of GNBS on a larger scale by developing educational resources to facilitate obtaining informed consent and return of results.

Australian public perspectives on genomic data storage and sharing: Benefits, concerns and access preferences.

Diagnostic genomic sequencing generates unprecedented amounts of data. In addition to its primary use, this data could be used for a wide range of secondary purposes, including research and informing future healthcare for the data donor. These opportunities may require data to be shared with third parties. Although effective data sharing relies on public support, there are barriers which may prevent people from choosing to donate their genomic data and surprisingly few studies explore these barriers in depth. To address this need, this study aimed to qualitatively explore the Australian public's views and preferences for storing and sharing genomic data. Online focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive content analysis. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted with 39 members of the Australian public ranging from 18 to 67 years of age. Participants were mostly supportive of genomic data being stored and shared for secondary purposes, recognising the potential benefits for individual health and wider medical research. However, some concerns were identified. Participants felt genomic data was particularly sensitive information, and raised the potential for discrimination, stigma, and other malicious uses of such data. Concerns for privacy and security of the data were also prevalent. Trustworthiness of data users was important when considering who genomic data should be shared with. Although participants were supportive of data being freely available to health professionals and researchers, they were opposed to insurance companies and employers accessing the data. There was greater controversy around sharing data with law enforcement and pharmaceutical companies. Participants recognised both benefits and harms to sharing with law enforcement. They were also cognizant of the dual purpose of pharmaceutical companies as both research and profit-driven organisations. Finally, participants expressed varying perspectives about sharing genomic data with family members, yet most agreed that explicit consent from the data donor should be required to share their information with relatives. This study highlighted several of the Australian public's perceived barriers and motivators for the storage and sharing of genomic data. Participants recognised both the benefits of collecting, storing and sharing such data widely but also the potential for harm from data misuse. While public acceptance of such endeavours is required to maximise the volume of data made available, the concerns around data access and security need to be addressed before this can occur. These findings also highlight the nuance and ethical complexity of decisions about who we should allow to access donated genomic data. These perspectives will be essential in helping to shape the way large-scale genomic data storage and sharing is developed and implemented in Australia, and internationally.