Abstract
Advances in genomic medicine are improving diagnosis and treatment of some health conditions, and the question of whether former patients should be recontacted is therefore timely. The issue of recontacting is becoming more important with increased integration of genomics in ‘mainstream’ medicine. Empirical evidence is needed to advance the discussion over whether and how recontacting should be implemented. We administered a web-based survey to genetic services in European countries to collect information about existing infrastructures and practices relevant to recontacting patients. The majority of the centres stated they had recontacted patients to update them about new significant information; however, there were no standardised practices or systems in place. There was also a multiplicity of understandings of the term ‘recontacting’, which respondents conflated with routine follow-up programmes, or even with post-test counselling. Participants thought that recontacting systems should be implemented to provide the best service to the patients and families. Nevertheless, many barriers to implementation were mentioned. These included: lack of resources and infrastructure, concerns about potential negative psychological consequences of recontacting, unclear operational definitions of recontacting, policies that prevent healthcare professionals from recontacting, and difficulties in locating patients after their last contact. These barriers are also intensified by the highly variable development (and establishment) of the specialties of medical genetics and genetic counselling across different European countries. Future recommendations about recontacting need to consider these barriers. It is also important to reach an ‘operational definition’ that can be useful in different countries.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Fitzpatrick JL, Han C, Costa T, Huggins MJ. The duty to recontact: attitudes of service providers. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64:852–60.
Hirschhorn K, Fleisher LD, Godmilow L, Howell RR, Lebel RR, McCabe ERB. Duty to re-contact. Policy statement: Social Ethical and Legal Issues Committee of the American College of Medical Geneticists. Genet Med. 1999;1:171–2.
Hunter AGW, Sharpe N, Mullen M, Meschino WS. Ethical, legal, and practical concerns about recontacting patients to inform them of new information. Am J Med Genet. 2001;103:265–76.
Carrieri D, Dheensa S, Doheny S, et al. Recontacting in clinical practice: an investigation of the views of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in the United Kingdom. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;25:275–9.
Otten E, Plantinga M, Birnie E, et al. Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 2015;17:668–78.
Carrieri D, Dheensa S, Doheny S, et al. Recontacting in clinical practice: the views and expectations of patients in the United Kingdom. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;25:1106–12.
Laurie G. Privacy and the right not to know: a plea for conceptual clarity./ Laurie, Graeme. The right to know and the right not to know: genetic privacy and responsibility. In: Ruth Chadwick; Mairi Levitt; Darren Shickle. 2nd. ed. Cambridge University Press. 2014; p. 38−52.
Sexton AC, Sahhar M, Thorburn DR, Metcalfe SA. Impact of a genetic diagnosis of a mitochondrial disorder 5-17 years after the death of an affected child. J Genet Couns. 2008;17:261–73.
Bernard LE, McGillivray B, Allen MIV, Friedman JM, Langlois S. Duty to re-contact: a study of families at risk for Fragile X. J Genet Couns. 1999;8:3–15.
Pyeritz RE. The coming explosion in genetic testing—is there a duty to recontact? N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1367–9.
Murray ML, Cerrato F, Bennett RL, Jarvik GP. Follow-up of carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of unknown significance: variant reclassification and surgical decisions. Genet Med. 2011;13:998–1005.
Knoppers BM. Duty to recontact: a legal harbinger? Am J Med Genet. 2001;103:277–277.
Dean JCS, Fitzpatrick DR, Farndon PA. Genetic register in clinical practice: a survey of UK clinical geneticists. J Med Genet. 2000;37:636–40.
Rantanen E, Hietala M, Kristoffersson U, Nippert I. Regulations and practices of genetic counselling in 38 European countries: the perspective of national representative. Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16:1208–16.
Shirts BH, Parker LS. Changing interpretations, stable genes: responsibilities of patients, professionals, and policy makers in the clinical interpretation of complex genetic information. Genet Med. 2008;10:778–83.
Burton H, Alberg C, Stewart A. Mainstreaming genetics: a comparative review of clinical services for inherited cardiovascular conditions in the UK. Public Health Genom. 2010;13:235–45.
McAllister M, Payne K, MacLeod R, Nicholls S. What process attributes of clinical genetics services could maximise patient benefits? Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16:1467–76.
Kausmeyer DT, Lengerich EJ, Kluhsman BC, Morrone D, Harper GR, Baker MJ. A survey of patients’ experiences with the cancer genetic counseling process: recommendations for cancer genetics programs. J Genet Couns. 2006;15:409–31.
Hart JT. The inverse care law. Lancet. 1971;297:405–12.
Carrieri D, Lucassen AM, Clarke AJ, et al. Recontact in clinical practice: a survey of clinical genetics services in the United Kingdom. Genet Med. 2016;18:876–81.
Bauer MW. Classical content analysis: a review. In: M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Ed.). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound; 2000 London, UK: Sage p. 131−51.
van El,CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, et al. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:S1–S5.
Berkman BE. Refuting the right not to know. J Health Care L Pol’y. 2016;19:1.
Carrieri D, Dheensa S, Doheny S, et al. Recontacting in clinical genetics and genomic medicine? We need to talk about it. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;25:520–1.
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to Professor Milan Macek, chair of the EU National Human Genetics Societies, the Presidents and the boards of the National Human Genetics Societies of European countries and all the Clinical Genetics Departments and Units who collaborated and participated in our survey. This work would not have been possible without them.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sirchia, F., Carrieri, D., Dheensa, S. et al. Recontacting or not recontacting? A survey of current practices in clinical genetics centres in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet 26, 946–954 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0131-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0131-5
This article is cited by
-
Searching for a sense of closure: parental experiences of recontacting after a terminated pregnancy for congenital malformations
European Journal of Human Genetics (2024)
-
The Need to Standardize the Reanalysis of Genomic Sequencing Results: Findings from Interviews with Underserved Families in Genomic Research
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry (2024)
-
Recontact: a survey of current practices and BRCA1/2 testing in Japan
Journal of Human Genetics (2023)
-
Recontacting in medical genetics: the implications of a broadening knowledge base
Human Genetics (2022)
-
Opinions and experiences of recontacting patients: a survey of Australasian genetic health professionals
Journal of Community Genetics (2022)
