Primary care providers' role in newborn screening result notification for cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') role in result notification for newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF), given that expanded NBS has increased the number of positive screening test results, drawing attention to the role of PCPs in supporting families. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interviews. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care providers (FPs, pediatricians, and midwives) who received a positive CF NBS result for an infant in their practice in the 6 months before the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether the PCP notified the family of the initial positive CF screening result. RESULTS: Data from 321 PCP surveys (response rate of 51%) are reported, including 208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, and 45 midwives. Interviews were completed with 34 PCPs. Most (65%) surveyed PCPs reported notifying the infant's family of the initial positive screening result; 81% agreed that they have an important role to play in NBS; and 88% said it was important for PCPs, rather than the NBS centre, to notify families of initial positive results. With support and information from NBS centres, 68% would be extremely or very confident in doing so; this dropped to 54% when reflecting on their recent reporting experience. More than half (58%) of all PCPs said written point-of-care information from the NBS centre was the most helpful format. Adjusted for relevant factors, written educational information was associated with a lower rate of notifying families than written plus verbal information (risk ratio of 0.79; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92). In the interviews, PCPs emphasized the challenge of balancing required content knowledge with the desire for the news to come from a familiar provider. CONCLUSION: Most PCPs notify families of NBS results and value this role. These data are relevant as NBS programs and other genomic services expand and consider ways of keeping PCPs confident and actively involved.

Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Role of primary care providers in caring for infants with positive screening results.

OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') preferred roles and confidence in caring for infants receiving a positive cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) result, as well as management of CF family planning issues, given that expanded NBS has resulted in an increase in positive results. DESIGN: Mailed questionnaire. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Ontario FPs, pediatricians, and midwives identified by Newborn Screening Ontario as having had an infant with a positive CF NBS result in their practice in the previous 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary care providers' preferred roles in providing well-baby care for infants with positive CF screening results. RESULTS: Overall, 321 of 628 (51%) completed surveys (208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, 45 midwives). For well-baby care for infants confirmed to have CF, 77% of PCPs indicated they would not provide total care (ie, 68% would share care with other specialists and 9% would refer to specialists completely); for infants with an inconclusive CF diagnosis, 50% of PCPs would provide total care, 45% would provide shared care, and 5% would refer to a specialist; for CF carriers, 89% of PCPs would provide total care, 9% would provide shared care, and 2% would refer. Half (54%) of PCPs were extremely or very confident in providing reassurance about CF carriers' health. Only 25% knew how to order parents' CF carrier testing; 67% knew how to refer for prenatal diagnosis. Confidence in reassuring parents about the health of CF carrier children was associated with providing total well-baby care for CF carriers (risk ratio of 1.50; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.97) and infants with an inconclusive diagnosis (risk ratio of 3.30; 95% CI 1.34 to 8.16). CONCLUSION: Most PCPs indicated willingness to treat infants with a range of CF NBS results in some capacity. It is concerning that some indicated CF carriers should have specialist involvement and only half were extremely or very confident about reassuring families about carrier status. This raises issues about possible medicalization of those with carrier status, prompting the need for PCP education about genetic disorders and the meaning of genetic test results.

One thing leads to another: the cascade of obligations when researchers report genetic research results to study participants.

Even as debate continues about the putative obligation to proactively report genetic research results to study participants, there is an increasing need to attend to the obligations that might cascade from any initial report. We conducted an international, quasi-experimental survey of researchers involved in autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and cystic fibrosis (CF) genetics to explore perceived obligations to ensure updated information or relevant clinical care subsequent to any initial communication of research results, and factors influencing these attitudes. 5-point Likert scales of dis/agreement were analyzed using descriptive and multivariate statistics. Of the 343 respondents (44% response rate), large majorities agreed that in general and in a variety of hypothetical research contexts, research teams that report results should ensure that participants gain subsequent access to updated information (74-83%) and implicated clinical services (79-87%). At the same time, researchers perceived barriers restricting access to relevant clinical care, though this was significantly more pronounced (P<0.001) for ASD (64%) than CF (34%). In the multivariate model, endorsement of cascading obligations was positively associated with researcher characteristics (eg, clinical role/training) and attitudes (eg, perceived initial reporting obligation), and negatively associated with the initial report of less scientifically robust hypothetical results, but unaffected by perceived or hypothetical barriers to care. These results suggest that researchers strongly endorse information and care-based obligations that cascade from the initial report of research results to study participants. In addition, they raise challenging questions about how any cascading obligations are to be met, especially where access challenges are already prevalent.

What does 'respect for persons' require? Attitudes and reported practices of genetics researchers in informing research participants about research.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that researchers are obliged to offer summary findings to research participants to demonstrate respect for persons, and that this may increase public trust in, and awareness of, the research enterprise. Yet little research explores researchers' attitudes and practices regarding the range of initiatives that might serve these ends. METHODS: Results of an international survey of 785 eligible authors of genetics research studies in autism or cystic fibrosis are reported. RESULTS: Of 343 researchers who completed the survey (44% response rate), the majority agreed that their team should (i) inform participants of summary findings (90.7%) and (ii) ensure they gain an awareness of developments in the field (86.9%). Additionally, the majority reported that in practice, their team (i) informs participants of summary findings (69.4%) and (ii) provides other types of relevant non-results information (eg, state of science in the field, opportunities for research participation) (67.9%). CONCLUSION: Researchers endorsed the obligation of communicating with research participants by providing summary findings and other research-related information in equal measure. In light of these findings, it is suggested that while the provision of summary results may contribute to efforts to discharge the obligation of respect for persons, it may be neither a necessary nor a sufficient means to this end.

Not so simple: a quasi-experimental study of how researchers adjudicate genetic research results.

Ethicists contend that researchers are obliged to report genetic research findings to individual study participants when they are clinically significant, that is, when they are clinically useful or personally meaningful to participants. Yet whether such standards are well understood and can be consistently applied remains unknown. We conducted an international, cross-sectional survey of cystic fibrosis (CF) and autism genetics researchers using a quasi-experimental design to explore factors influencing researchers' judgments. Eighty percent of researchers agreed, in principle, that clinically significant findings should be reported to individual participants. Yet judgments about when a specific finding was considered clinically significant or warranted reporting varied by scientific factors (replication, robustness, intentionality, and disease context), capacity of the research team to explain the results, and type of research ethics guidance. Further, judgments were influenced by the researchers' disease community (autism or CF), their primary role (clinical, molecular, statistical) and their beliefs regarding a general reporting obligation. In sum, judgments about the clinical significance of genetic research results, and about whether they should be reported, are influenced by scientific parameters as well as contextual factors related to the specific research project and the individual researcher. These findings call into question the assumption that the conditions under which an obligation to disclose arises are uniformly understood and actionable. Adjudicating the clinical readiness of provisional data may be a responsibility better suited to evaluative experts at arms' length of the provisional data in question, rather than a responsibility imposed upon researchers themselves.

What is a meaningful result? Disclosing the results of genomic research in autism to research participants.

Developments in genomics research have been accompanied by a controversial ethical injunction: that researchers disclose individually relevant research results to research participants. With the explosion of genomic research on complex psychiatric conditions such as autism, researchers must increasingly contend with whether--and which results--to report. We conducted a qualitative study with researchers and participants involved in autism genomics research, including 4 focus groups and 23 interviews with parents of autistic children, and 23 interviews with researchers. Respondents considered genomic research results 'reportable' when results were perceived to explain cause, and answer the question 'why;' that is, respondents set a standard for reporting individually relevant genetic research results to individual participants that is specific to autism, reflecting the metaphysical value that genetic information is seen to offer in this context. In addition to this standard of meaning, respondents required that results be deemed 'true.' Here, respondents referenced standards of validity that were context nonspecific. Yet in practice, what qualified as 'true' depended on evidentiary standards within specific research disciplines as well as fundamental, and contested, theories about how autism is 'genetic.' For research ethics, these finding suggest that uniform and context-free obligations regarding result disclosure cannot readily be specified. For researchers, they suggest that result disclosure to individuals should be justified not only by perceived meaning but also by clarity regarding appropriate evidentiary standards, and attention to the status of epistemological debates regarding the nature and cause of disorders.