Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37366793›Full record

ArticleBiotech (Basel (Switzerland))2023

Privacy Implications of Contacting the At-Risk Relatives of Patients with Medically Actionable Genetic Predisposition, with Patient Consent: A Hypothetical Australian Case Study.

Jane Tiller, Kristen Nowak, Tiffany Boughtwood, Margaret Otlowski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jane TillerAustralian Genomics, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3906-6632
Kristen NowakOffice of Population Health Genomics, Department of Health, Perth, WA 6004, Australia.
Tiffany BoughtwoodAustralian Genomics, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9634-3731
Margaret OtlowskiCentre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.
Murdoch Children's Research Institute · AUGovernment of Western Australia Department of Health · AUUniversity of Tasmania · AU

Funding

Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund N/ANational Health and Medical Research Council GNT1113531National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2000001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic risk information has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%. International research supports direct notification of at-risk relatives by health professionals (HPs), with patient consent. However, HPs express concerns about the privacy implications of this practice. Our privacy analysis, grounded in a clinically relevant hypothetical scenario, considers the types of personal information involved in direct notification of at-risk relatives and the application of Australian privacy regulations. It finds that collecting relatives' contact details, and using those details (with patient consent) to notify relatives of possible genetic risk, does not breach Australian privacy law, providing that HPs adhere to regulatory requirements. It finds the purported "right to know" does not prevent disclosure of genetic information to at-risk relatives. Finally, the analysis confirms that the discretion available to HPs does not equate to a positive duty to warn at-risk relatives. Thus, direct notification of a patient's at-risk relatives regarding medically actionable genetic information, with patient consent, is not a breach of Australian privacy regulations, providing it is conducted in accordance with the applicable principles set out. Clinical services should consider offering this service to patients where appropriate. National guidelines would assist with the clarification of the discretion for HPs.

Indexed as

cascade testingethicsgeneticsgenetic testingmedically actionablepreventionprivacyrisk notification

Identifiers

PMID37366793
PMCPMC10296322
OpenAlexW4379958435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.