Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T04:18:35.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Natural Settings Trials — Improving the Introduction of Clinical Genetic Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021


Many new genetic tests are used in clinical practice, and the number of available tests is growing. Two important health policy questions arise as these genetic tests become available. The first question, whether a new test should be made available, has been the focus of much recent discussion. The second question concerns defining the appropriate standards surrounding the use of these tests, including patient selection, education, informed consent, test interpretation and counseling.

Genetic tests currently move from the research arena, where strategies are put in place to minimize risks,into the clinical context where the practice of medicine is more variable and the risks to patients less understood. In the research setting, risks can be minimized through safeguards including education, consent, and counseling. The frequency and magnitude of psychosocial and clinical risks canbe assessed. In the clinical setting, however, these safeguards may not be used consistently, creating unknown risksfor patients (see table).

Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Secretary’s Advisory Commission on Genetic Testing, Enhancing the Oversight of Genetic Tests: Recommendations of the SACGT, Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, National Institutes of Health, July 2000, available at <> (last visited February 8, 2004).+(last+visited+February+8,+2004).>Google Scholar
Hayflick, S.J. et al. , “Primary Care Physicians’ Utilization and Perceptions of Genetics Services,” Genetics in Medicine 1, no. 1 (1998): 1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giardiello, F.M. et al. , “The Use and Interpretation of Commercial APC Gene Testing for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis,” N. Engl. J. Med. 336, no. 12 (1997): 823–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gene Tests: Medical Genetics Information Resource, University of Washington and Children’s Health System, Seattle, 1993–2004, Available at <> (last visited February 8, 2004).+(last+visited+February+8,+2004).>Google Scholar
Haga, S. et al. “Genomic Profiling to Promote a Healthy Lifestyle: Not Ready for Prime Time,” Nature Genetics 34 no. 4 (2003): 347–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marteau, T.M. Lerman, C. “Genetic Risk and Behavioural Change,” British Medical Journal 322, no. 7293 (2001): 1056–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollust, S.E. et al. “Direct-to-Consumer Sales of Genetic Services on the Internet.” Genetics in Medicine 5, no. 4 (2003): 332–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, J. Hayflick, S., “The Challenge of Integrating Genetic Medicine into Primary Care,” British Medical Journal 322, no. 7293 (2001): 1027–30.Google Scholar
See Hayflick, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Giardiello, , supra note 3.Google Scholar
Braddock, C.H. et al. , “Informed Decision Making in Outpatient Practice: Time to Get Back to Basics,” JAMA 282, no. 24 (1999): 2313–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morning Edition: Analysis: Genetic Screening for Cystic Fibrosis, produced by National Public Radio, Washington (2003): Transcript of broadcast report by J. Hamilton.Google Scholar
Welsh, M.J. et al. , “Cystic Fibrosis,” in Scriver, C.R. et al. , eds., The Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited Disease (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001): 51215188.Google Scholar
Strom, C.M. et al. , “Cystic Fibrosis Screening Using the College Panel: Platform Comparison and Lessons Learned from the First 20,000 Samples,” Genetics in Medicine 4, no. 4 (2002): 289–96;Grody, W.W. et al. , “Laboratory Standards and Guidelines for Population-Based Cystic Fibrosis Carrier Screening,” Genetics in Medicine 3, no. 2 (2001): 149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Hamilton, supra note 12.Google Scholar
Greendale, K. Pyeritz, R.E., “Empowering Primary Care Health Professionals in Medical Genetics: How Soon? How Fast? How Far?” American Journal of Medical Genetics 106, no. 3 (2001): 223–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druss, B. Mechanic, D., “Should Visit Length be Used as a Quality Indicator in Primary Care?” Lancet 361, no. 9364 (2003): 1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, W. et al. , “Application of Population Screening Principles to Genetic Screening for Adult-Onset Conditions,” Genetic Testing 5, no. 3 (2001): 201–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freund, C. L. Wilfond, B.S., “Emerging Ethical Issues in Pharmacogenomics: From Research to Clinical Practice,” American Journal of Pharmacogenomics 2, no. 4 (2002): 273–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Freund, supra note 19.Google Scholar
Burke, W. et al. “Genetic Test Evaluation: Information Needs of Clinicians, Policy Makers, and the Public.” American Journal of Epidemiology 156, no. 4 (2002): 311–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Greendale, , supra note 16;Biesecker, B.B. Peters, K.F., “Process Studies in Genetic Counseling: Peering into the Black Box,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 106, no. 3 (2001): 191–8;Pilnick, A. Dingwall, R., “Research Directions in Genetic Counseling: A Review of the Literature,” Patient Education and Counseling 44, no. 2 (2001): 95–105.Google Scholar
See Giardiello, supra note 3.Google Scholar
See Giardiello, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Holden, J.D., “Hawthorne Effects and Research into Professional Practice,” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 7, no. 1 (2001): 6570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Giardiello, , supra note 3;Veatch, R.M., “Consent, Confidentiality, and Research,” N. Engl. J. Med. 336, no. 12 (1997): 869–70;Winkens, R.A. et al. , “Fitting a Routine Health–Care Activity into a Randomized Trial: An Experiment Possible Without Informed Consent’”Journal of Clinical Epidemiology50, no. 4 (1997): 435–9.Google Scholar