4.6 Article

Privacy practices using genetic data from cell-free DNA aneuploidy screening

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 1746-1752

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01205-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Rhode Island Foundation [5216_20200608]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that most laboratories use prenatal genetic information for research and share genetic information with others. However, laboratories inadequately disclosed privacy risks, and the readability of most genetic privacy policies was high.
Purpose Cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) analyzes maternal and fetoplacental DNA, generating highly personal genetic information for both mother and fetus. This study aimed to determine how laboratories retain, use, and share genetic information from cfDNA. Other outcomes included laboratories' adherence to American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) privacy principles, and the readability of privacy policies. Methods Laboratories offering cfDNA aneuploidy screening were identified from online searches, curated databases, and a genomics news website. Of 124 laboratories identified, 13 were commercial laboratories offering cfDNA aneuploidy screening in the United States, and were included. Genetic privacy policies from eligible laboratories were identified by reviewing requisition and consent forms, which were obtained online or by direct contact. Results Most laboratories use prenatal genetic information for research (n = 10, 77%), and more than half (n = 7, 54%) shared genetic information with others. Overall, laboratories inadequately disclosed privacy risks. In a readability analysis, 9 of 11 (82%) laboratories' genetic privacy policies were written at or above a 12th grade reading level. Conclusion Most laboratories allowed for prolonged use and sharing of cfDNA data, demonstrated incomplete adherence to ASHG privacy recommendations, and provided consents written in college-level language. Laboratories should revise their consent forms, and providers should help patients understand these forms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据