Towards Patient Involvement and Representation in the Governance of Genomic Data Archives: Deliberative forums with patients in Germany.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Eric Apondo, Katja Mehlis, Andreas Bruns, Christoph Schickhardt, Eva Winkler, Andrea Züger
{"title":"Towards Patient Involvement and Representation in the Governance of Genomic Data Archives: Deliberative forums with patients in Germany.","authors":"Eric Apondo, Katja Mehlis, Andreas Bruns, Christoph Schickhardt, Eva Winkler, Andrea Züger","doi":"10.1159/000546172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although it is generally agreed that the perspectives of patients should be included in decision-making about genomic data, patients rarely have a significant role in the governance of genomic data archives (GDAs). Guidance on the successful implementation of patient involvement (PI) in the governance of GDAs is lacking. This study explores the perspectives of German patients on PI in the governance of GDAs and how these perspectives can be implemented to have an impact on governance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted two online deliberative forums with 26 members of the cancer and rare diseases (RD) communities in Germany. The forums were analyzed qualitatively. The findings were discussed in a follow-up dialogue event with 17 of the participants and members of a GDA (The German Human Genome-Phenome Archive, GHGA) (n=9). Two patient co-researchers were involved in all phases of the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five themes were identified: (a) motivations for PI; (b) concerns about PI; (c) areas of governance in which PI is required; (d) resources necessary for implementation of PI; and (e) the form PI should take.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For PI in GDAs to be meaningful, patient perspectives on the specific contextual aspects of GDAs should be actively sought. Patients' views on representation affect what form of PI they prefer and whether they experience the representation as legitimate. We discuss how the suggestions from the participants of this study were taken up in the governance policy of the GHGA.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000546172","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Although it is generally agreed that the perspectives of patients should be included in decision-making about genomic data, patients rarely have a significant role in the governance of genomic data archives (GDAs). Guidance on the successful implementation of patient involvement (PI) in the governance of GDAs is lacking. This study explores the perspectives of German patients on PI in the governance of GDAs and how these perspectives can be implemented to have an impact on governance.

Methods: We conducted two online deliberative forums with 26 members of the cancer and rare diseases (RD) communities in Germany. The forums were analyzed qualitatively. The findings were discussed in a follow-up dialogue event with 17 of the participants and members of a GDA (The German Human Genome-Phenome Archive, GHGA) (n=9). Two patient co-researchers were involved in all phases of the study.

Results: Five themes were identified: (a) motivations for PI; (b) concerns about PI; (c) areas of governance in which PI is required; (d) resources necessary for implementation of PI; and (e) the form PI should take.

Conclusion: For PI in GDAs to be meaningful, patient perspectives on the specific contextual aspects of GDAs should be actively sought. Patients' views on representation affect what form of PI they prefer and whether they experience the representation as legitimate. We discuss how the suggestions from the participants of this study were taken up in the governance policy of the GHGA.

基因组数据档案管理中的患者参与和代表:德国患者审议论坛。
导言:尽管人们普遍认为,在基因组数据决策中应纳入患者的观点,但患者很少在基因组数据档案(GDAs)的治理中发挥重要作用。缺乏在GDAs治理中成功实施患者参与(PI)的指导。本研究探讨了德国患者在GDAs治理中的PI观点,以及如何实施这些观点以对治理产生影响。方法:我们在德国与26名癌症和罕见疾病(RD)社区的成员进行了两个在线审议论坛。对论坛进行了定性分析。在后续的对话活动中,研究人员与17名参与者和GDA(德国人类基因组-表型档案,GHGA)的成员(n=9)讨论了这些发现。两名患者共同研究人员参与了研究的所有阶段。结果:确定了五个主题:(a) PI的动机;(b)对PI的关注;(c)需要PI的治理领域;(d)执行PI所需的资源;(e) PI应采取的形式。结论:为了使GDAs中的PI有意义,应该积极寻求患者对GDAs具体背景方面的看法。患者对表征的看法影响了他们对PI的偏好以及他们是否认为表征是合法的。我们讨论了本研究参与者的建议如何被纳入GHGA的治理政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health Genomics
Public Health Genomics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信