scholarly journals What guidance does HIPAA offer to providers considering familial risk notification and cascade genetic testing?

Author(s):  
Nora B Henrikson ◽  
Jennifer K Wagner ◽  
Heather Hampel ◽  
Christopher DeVore ◽  
Nirupama Shridhar ◽  
...  

Abstract Background It is unclear how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) should be interpreted in the context of sharing of genomic information between family members. Methods The authors analyzed the HIPAA Privacy Rule, reviewed the literature and constructed a clinical scenario to inform how HIPAA can be interpreted for multiple forms of patient- and provider-mediated genetic risk notification. Results Under HIPAA, healthcare providers can lawfully notify relatives to recommend genetic risk assessment using multiple approaches, including supporting the patient telling their own relatives, contacting relatives directly with the patient’s authorization, or contacting a relative’s provider directly. Conclusions Multiple forms of patient- or provider-mediated contact of relatives are already legally permissible under HIPAA, are consistent with ethical obligations of care to patients and their families, and could result in improved population health through identification of clinically actionable disease risk. Unanswered questions remain about implementation and impacts of provider-mediated programs.

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hei Man Wu ◽  
Alison M. Goate ◽  
Paul F. O’Reilly

AbstractHere we report how four major forms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) genetic risk—APOE-ε4, APOE-ε2, polygenic risk and familial risk—are associated with 273 traits in ~500,000 individuals in the UK Biobank. The traits cover blood biochemistry and cell traits, metabolic and general health, psychosocial health, and cognitive function. The difference in the profile of traits associated with the different forms of AD risk is striking and may contribute to heterogenous presentation of the disease. However, we also identify traits significantly associated with multiple forms of AD genetic risk, as well as traits showing significant changes across ages in those at high risk of AD, which may point to their potential roles in AD etiology. Finally, we highlight how survivor effects, in particular those relating to shared risks of cardiovascular disease and AD, can generate associations that may mislead interpretation in epidemiological AD studies. The UK Biobank provides a unique opportunity to powerfully compare the effects of different forms of AD genetic risk on the phenome in the same cohort.


2013 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. BBI.S11601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pingzhao Hu ◽  
Aleixo M. Muise ◽  
Xiang Xing ◽  
John H. Brumell ◽  
Mark S. Silverberg ◽  
...  

To date, the utility of single genetic markers to improve disease risk assessment still explains only a small proportion of genetic variance for many complex diseases. This missing heritability may be explained by additional variants with weak effects. To discover and incorporate these additional genetic factors, statistical and computational methods must be evaluated and developed. We develop a multi-locus genetic risk score (GRS) based approach to analyze genes in NADPH oxidase complex which may result in susceptibility to development of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We find the complex is highly associated with IBD ( P = 7.86 × 10–14) using the GRS-based association method. Similar results are also shown in permutation analysis ( P = 6.65 × 10–11). Likelihood ratio test shows that the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the complex without nominal signals have significant contribution to the overall genetic effect within the complex ( P = 0.015). Our results show that the multi-locus GRS association model can improve the genetic risk assessment on IBD by taking into account both confirmed and as yet unconfirmed disease susceptibility variants.


2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Hiraki ◽  
Clara A. Chen ◽  
J. Scott Roberts ◽  
L. Adrienne Cupples ◽  
Robert C. Green

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 713
Author(s):  
Cheryl Lin ◽  
Jewel Mullen ◽  
Danielle Smith ◽  
Michaela Kotarba ◽  
Samantha J. Kaplan ◽  
...  

Despite vaccines’ effectiveness in reducing the rate of preventable diseases, vaccine hesitancy has threatened public health and economies worldwide. Healthcare providers’ (HCP) communications and behavior strongly influence patient receptivity and uptake. The goal of this review was to examine HCP vaccine perceptions, knowledge, and reservations and how these attitudes affect their recommendations and vaccination practices. Primary research studies published by 16 September 2020 were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. A 14-item scale was developed for survey study and risk of bias appraisal (SSRBA). In total, 96 papers from 34 countries were included, covering 17 vaccines (HPV and influenza vaccines the most studied). Recommendation was positively associated with provider knowledge and experience, beliefs about disease risk, and perceptions of vaccine safety, necessity, and efficacy. HCP vaccination attitudes and practices varied across specialties, vaccines, and countries; demographic impact was inconclusive. Barriers included anticipation of patient/parental concerns or refusal, lacking clear guidelines, time constraints, and cost. For HPV, vaccines were more often recommended to older, female adolescents and by physicians who discussed sexual health. HCPs are vital advocates for patients and the public, but studies indicated a prevalence of provider hesitancy pertaining to inadequate knowledge, low vaccine confidence, and suboptimal uptake themselves. Improving HCP knowledge and assuring their access to information they deem trustworthy are essential to supporting HCPs‘ role as “trusted messengers” to promote vaccine acceptance.


Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gennady Bratslavsky ◽  
Neil Mendhiratta ◽  
Michael Daneshvar ◽  
James Brugarolas ◽  
Mark W. Ball ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Phelps ◽  
P. Bennett ◽  
H. Jones ◽  
K. Hood ◽  
K. Brain ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document