Patients’ perceptions and practices of informing relatives: a qualitative study within a randomised trial on healthcare … – Nature.com

Prince AE, Cadigan RJ, Henderson GE, Evans JP, Adams M, Coker-Schwimmer E. et al. Is there evidence that we should screen the general population for Lynch syndrome with genetic testing? A systematic review. Pharmacogenomics Pers Med.2017;10:4960.

CAS Google Scholar

Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Haney E, Holmes R. Risk Assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama. 2019;322:66685.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Monahan KJ, Bradshaw N, Dolwani S, Desouza B, Dunlop MG, East JE, et al. Guidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)/United Kingdom Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG). Gut. 2020;69:41144.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Young AL, Imran A, Spoelma MJ, Williams R, Tucker KM, Halliday J, et al. Proband-mediated interventions to increase disclosure of genetic risk in families with a BRCA or Lynch syndrome condition: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023;31:1834.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Ahsan MD, Levi SR, Webster EM, Bergeron H, Lin J, Narayan P, et al. Do people with hereditary cancer syndromes inform their at-risk relatives? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PEC Innov. 2023;2:100138.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Gaff CL, Collins V, Symes T, Halliday J. Facilitating family communication about predictive genetic testing: probands perceptions. J Genet Couns. 2005;14:13340.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Frey MK, Ahsan MD, Bergeron H, Lin J, Li X, Fowlkes RK, et al. Cascade testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: should we move toward direct relative contact? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:412943.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Menko FH, van der Velden SL, Griffioen DN, Ait Moha D, Jeanson KN, Hogervorst FBL, et al. Does a proactive procedure lead to a higher uptake of predictive testing in families with a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 variant? A family cancer clinic evaluation. J Genet Couns. 2023 [Internet]. Aug 21. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37605508.

National clinical guidelines of breast cancer management [Internet]. Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres in Sweden. [cited 2023 Sept 10]. Available from: https://kunskapsbanken.cancercentrum.se/diagnoser/brostcancer/vardprogram/.

National clinical guidelines of colorectal cancer management [Internet]. Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres in Sweden. [cited 2023 Sept 10]. Available from: https://kunskapsbanken.cancercentrum.se/diagnoser/tjock-och-andtarmscancer/vardprogram/.

Hawranek C, Ehrencrona H, Ofverholm A, Hellquist BN, Rosen A. Direct letters to relatives at risk of hereditary cancer-study protocol for a multi-center randomized controlled trial of healthcare-assisted versus family-mediated risk disclosure at Swedish cancer genetics clinics (DIRECT-study). Trials. 2023;24:810.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport, Exerc Health. 2019;11:58997.

Article Google Scholar

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77101.

Article Google Scholar

Forrest K, Simpson SA, Wilson BJ, van Teijlingen ER, McKee L, Haites N, et al. To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clin Genet. 2003;64:31726.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Gaff CL, Clarke AJ, Atkinson P, Sivell S, Elwyn G, Iredale R, et al. Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007;15:9991011.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

McGarragle KM, Hare C, Holter S, Facey DA, McShane K, Gallinger S, et al. Examining intrafamilial communication of colorectal cancer risk status to family members and kin responses to colonoscopy: a qualitative study. Hered Cancer Clin Pr. 2019;17:16.

Article Google Scholar

Henrikson NB, Blasi P, Figueroa Gray M, Tiffany BT, Scrol A, Ralston JD, et al. Patient and family preferences on health system-led direct contact for cascade screening. J Pers Med. 2021;11:538.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Pedrazzani C, Aceti M, Schweighoffer R, Kaiser-Grolimund A, Brki N, Chappuis PO, et al. The communication chain of genetic risk: analyses of narrative data exploring probandprovider and probandfamily communication in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Pers Med. 2022;12:1249.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Srinivasan S, Won NY, Dotson WD, Wright ST, Roberts MC. Barriers and facilitators for cascade testing in genetic conditions: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:163144.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Daly MB. Family communication of genetic risk: a personalized approach. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2016;4:3540.

Article Google Scholar

Finn KS, Pacyna J, Azevedo Tsou C, Jewel Samadder N, Sharp R. Patient-reported anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing cancer genetic risk information with family members. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30:5361.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Srinivasan S, Hampel H, Leeman J, Patel A, Kulchak Rahm A, Reuland DS, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on overcoming barriers to cascade testing in Lynch syndrome: a qualitative study. Cancer Prev Res. 2020;13:103746.

Article Google Scholar

Ballard LM, Band R, Lucassen AM. Interventions to support patients with sharing genetic test results with at-risk relatives: a synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM). Eur J Hum Genet. 2023;31:9881002.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Mendes A, Paneque M, Sousa L, Clarke A, Sequeiros J. How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:31525.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Vos J, Menko F, Jansen AM, van Asperen CJ, Stiggelbout AM, Tibben A. A whisper-game perspective on the family communication of DNA-test results: a retrospective study on the communication process of BRCA1/2-test results between proband and relatives. Fam Cancer. 2011;10:8796.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Jacobs C, Dancyger C, Smith JA, Michie S. Accuracy of recall of information about a cancer-predisposing BRCA1/2 gene mutation among patients and relatives. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:14751.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

van den Heuvel LM, Hoedemaekers YM, Baas AF, Baars MJH, van Tintelen JP, Smets EMA, et al. A tailored approach to informing relatives at risk of inherited cardiac conditions: results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30:20310.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Jacobs C, Patch C, Michie S. Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019;27:51124.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

van den Heuvel LM, Smets EMA, van Tintelen JP, Christiaans I. How to inform relatives at risk of hereditary diseases? A mixed-methods systematic review on patient attitudes. J Genet Couns. 2019;28:104258.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Eijzenga W, de Geus E, Aalfs CM, Menko FH, Sijmons RH, de Haes H, et al. How to support cancer genetics counselees in informing at-risk relatives? Lessons from a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101:16119.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Pedrazzani C, Ming C, Burki N, Caiata-Zufferey M, Chappuis PO, Duquette D, et al. Genetic literacy and communication of genetic information in families concerned with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a cross-study comparison in two countries and within a timeframe of more than 10 years. Cancers. 2021;13:6254.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Paul J, Metcalfe S, Stirling L, Wilson B, Hodgson J. Analyzing communication in genetic consultations-a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98:1533.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Henrikson NB, Blasi PR, Fullerton SM, Grafton J, Leppig KA, Jarvik GP, et al. It would be so much easier: health system-led genetic risk notification-feasibility and acceptability of cascade screening in an integrated system. J Community Genet. 2019;10:46170.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Dheensa S, Fenwick A, Lucassen A. Is this knowledge mine and nobody elses? I dont feel that. Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine. J Med Eth. 2016;42:1749.

Article Google Scholar

Tam NT, Huy NT, Thoa le TB, Long NP, Trang NT, Hirayama K, et al. Participants understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:18698H.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Blasi PR, Scrol A, Anderson ML, Gray MF, Tiffany B, Fullerton SM, et al. Feasibility, acceptability, and limited efficacy of health system-led familial risk notification: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022;8:174.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kim S, Aceti M, Baroutsou V, Burki N, Caiata-Zufferey M, Cattaneo M, et al. Using a Tailored Digital Health Intervention for family communication and cascade genetic testing in Swiss and Korean families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: protocol for the DIALOGUE study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2021;10:e26264.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Siglen E, Vetti HH, Augestad M, Steen VM, Lunde A, Bjorvatn C. Evaluation of the Rosa chatbot providing genetic information to patients at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e46571.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Read more from the original source:

Patients' perceptions and practices of informing relatives: a qualitative study within a randomised trial on healthcare ... - Nature.com

In two of the great liberal democracies, freedom of speech stops at Israel – The Irish Times

If theres one thing you read this week, make it Masha Gessens piece in the New Yorker, In the Shadow of the Holocaust. Gessen, one of the finest journalists working today, is caught up in one of those through-the-looking-glass moments we are experiencing regarding the censorship and shunning of countless academics, public intellectuals, artists and journalists in relation to any kind of critique or even contextual framing of Israels policies and bombardment of Gaza.

In an interview in the Washington Post, Gessen said that the Heinrich Bll Foundation which sponsors the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought pulled its support for the presentation of the prize to Gessen, who is Jewish. The Post quoted the foundation as saying that Gessens piece implies that Israel aims to liquidate Gaza like a Nazi ghetto This statement is not an offer for open discussion; it does not help to understand the conflict in the Middle East.

However, the Hannah Arendt organisation has not rescinded the prize. Its a slightly absurdist hypothetical to posit, but under the current conditions in Germany, could Arendt herself famous for her writing on totalitarianism even be awarded the Hannah Arendt Prize today without opposition? I doubt it.

[Seven arrested in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands over suspected terrorism plots]

[Empathy key in Germanys link to Israel, says former ambassador to Ireland]

Germany and America present themselves as open and progressive societies where people can express themselves freely. In the context of any desire to call out Israels abhorrent slaughter of innocent people in Gaza, this is a fantasy. Unless real progressives, genuine democrats, those who authentically believe in free societies stop this rot, these two countries in particular Germany and the US are going to fold their hypocritical concepts of freedom in on themselves. All that will be left is the shadow of an aspiration operating in darkness.

In February 2012, I travelled to multiple Russian cities with the band And So I Watch You From Afar and, late at night, would chat to their young fans about their context. A sort of code emerged that almost felt like jazz, navigating and interpreting the gaps and silences to extract meanings, gently searching for their assessment of the political and social conditions they were living under. A week after I flew home from Moscow, Pussy Riot walked into the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, a few hundred metres from the Kremlin, and began a performance that would lead to global fame and their arrest.

You dont protect democracy by rounding up protesters calling for peace, or censoring or silencing journalists, artists and public intellectuals

Ive also travelled to countries where being gay is punishable by imprisonment, and where the threat to safety is very obvious should the fact of ones sexuality become known, and so I have outright lied about my sexuality when asked, in order to preserve my personal safety.

None of this felt as unnerving as what I experienced in New York in October. The consequences of striking up a conversation about the Israeli attacks on Gaza wouldnt be particularly severe. They might cause anger or a profound social awkwardness. But it was the lie of Americas freedom of speech that felt so grotesque. I was disturbing myself by participating in the sort of social censorship that hung over the city; being careful about who I spoke to about what was going on, talking in low tones when in public, engaging in the game of not mentioning what was on everyones mind when it was so obviously being left out of conversation. Police rounded up protesters, many of them Jewish. If there is one good thing to take from America right now, it is the actions of Jewish Voice for Peace, who are putting their bodies on the line in the name of peace.

In this context which feels so specifically disturbing when one is in it America is not fighting anti-Semitism. It is performing that fight, but actually behaving in a manner that can only lead to the comparative naming of a single term: McCarthyism.

[US vetoes UN call for immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza]

[Pro-Palestinian demonstration held outside US ambassadors residence in Dublin]

An Irishwoman, Julie Fogarty, who has lived in Berlin for 15 years, recently co-organised a Gig for Gaza, directly inspired by the Dublin event. Whatever about raising money, Fogarty told me, it came from a sense that we had to show the Palestinian community and there is a huge Palestinian population in Berlin that we are with them. I just wanted them to know: people do support you, people are here in solidarity, there are white Europeans who stand with you, people in the Berlin queer community do stand with you.

Fogarty characterises the current atmosphere of censorship in Germany as insane and a nightmare. She said she was shocked by the actions of the Berlin police at early protests where she saw young Arab men being pulled out of crowds and beaten. Over here, a demo could have a hundred people at it, she said, and there will be just as many heavily militarised police, guns, constantly filming the protest. This is for a peaceful demonstration. You cant help now but think of their history in relation to that.

You dont protect democracy by rounding up protesters calling for peace, or censoring or silencing journalists, artists and public intellectuals. When freedoms fall apart in democracies, its often not only due to attacks on democracy instigated by the fascistic. The collapse includes the assistance and facilitation of impositions on civil liberties and freedom of expression by the forces that characterise themselves as the centre. This is whats happening in America. Its also whats happening in Germany.

When the far right triumphs or obtains more power in these countries, it will be important for those who claim to resist such futures, yet replicate their trademarks of oppression, to examine what they did, what they didnt do, and why. It will also be too late.

Go here to read the rest:

In two of the great liberal democracies, freedom of speech stops at Israel - The Irish Times

Rishi Sunak’s Brexit deal is up and running. It’s ‘cataclysmic’ for UK food exports – POLITICO Europe

Press play to listen to this article

Voiced by artificial intelligence.

LONDON When Rishi Sunak signed his new Brexit deal in February, he boasted that it would deliver smooth flowing trade within the whole United Kingdom.

But just two months after the Windsor Framework came into effect, it's having huge unintended consequences for a key export sector, with hundreds of millions of pounds in trade now at risk.

Since October this year, all meat and some dairy products moving from Great Britain to be sold in Northern Ireland a part of the U.K. have been required to carry not for EU labels. It's meant to ensure goods aren't moved onward into the Republic of Ireland, an EU member country.

But the British government is going further.

From October 2024, all meat and dairy products sold right across the U.K. will also have to include the labels even if there is no intention to ever send the products to Northern Ireland.

The requirement will be applied to more U.K. food products from July 2025. And it applies whether the food is produced in the U.K. or imported.

Businesses say the plans for a U.K.-wide rollout go way beyond Brussels requirements as set out in the Windsor Framework and, crucially, could see EU exports plummet because of the costs and inefficiency of doing separate production runs for British and European markets.

Sean Ramsden, director of the Food and Drink Exporters Association and the CEO of food export business Ramsden International, described the new system as absolutely cataclysmic for food exporters.

Ramsden told POLITICO he fears that eventually all of the products he is supplied with by partner Co-op will be labeled not for EU, which means we cant export them to the EU."

While large manufacturers may find it easier to comply with the new rules, Ramsden says the changes could prove too costly for smaller operations.

A lot of manufacturers will probably just give up on the European market, he said. It seems an inconsequential thing to say put it onto the packaging, but in practice it means changing production runs. Manufacturers are saying this is crazy because they dont want to start doing additional production runs.

His concerns were echoed by Balwinder Dhoot, director of sustainability and growth at the Food and Drink Federation (FDF). He told British MPs recently that implementation costs of the labeling requirement would run into hundreds of millions of pounds a year across the industry.

It generates a risk for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds worth of exports, he told MPs last month. That is an unnecessary domestic policy. You cannot have a trade policy that is trying to promote exports on one hand, and then undermine that with domestic policy on the other.

A spokesperson for the group, which represents food and drink manufacturers, said the labeling removes the flexibility that was agreed with the EU and will result in less choice for shoppers in both Northern Ireland and GB.

A more pragmatic approach would be to monitor supply before taking action, and work with the industry to find a practical solution.

Although the U.K.-wide labeling requirements do not come into force until October next year, some manufacturers appear to already be using the labeling system in preparation for the rollout.

As a result, Ramsden says his company is having to do manual checks on everything, take out the [labeled] products from the orders, return them to the supplier, credit them to the customer and take them off our list.

Another unintended consequence, Ramsden warns, is that non-EU consumers will be put off by the not for EU labels.

If we export to other markets, what are the consumers going to think when they see not for EU on the packaging? They are going to question whether its safe, he said.

For Ramsden, the labeling requirement is just the latest in a string of headaches resulting from the U.K. leaving the EU, which has already seen the companys sales with the bloc plummet from 25 million to 16 million as a result of Brexit.

This will finish it all because we are supplied by stock thats in circulation in the U.K. market.

A government spokesperson said: The Windsor Framework drastically reduces the paperwork and processes required compared to the old protocol. We continue to engage extensively with businesses to support them in adapting to these new arrangements.

The rest is here:

Rishi Sunak's Brexit deal is up and running. It's 'cataclysmic' for UK food exports - POLITICO Europe