Gratien Dalpé, Ida Ngueng Feze, Shahad Salman, Yann Joly, Julie Hagan, Emmanuelle Lévesque, Véronique Dorval, Jolyane Blouin-Bougie, Nabil Amara, Michel Dorval, Jacques Simard
Abstract
Genetic stratification approaches in personalized medicine may considerably improve our ability to predict breast cancer risk for women at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Notwithstanding these advantages, concerns have been raised about the use of the genetic information derived in these processes, outside of the research and medical health care settings, by third parties such as insurers. Indeed, insurance applicants are asked to consent to insurers accessing their medical information (implicitly including genetic) to verify or determine their insurability level, or eligibility to certain insurance products. This use of genetic information may result in the differential treatment of individuals based on their genetic information, which could lead to higher premium, exclusionary clauses or even the denial of coverage. This phenomenon has been commonly referred to as "Genetic Discrimination" (GD). In the Canadian context, where federal Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, has recently been enacted but may be subject to constitutional challenges, information about potential risks to insurability may raise issues in the clinical context. We conducted a survey with women in Quebec who have never been diagnosed with breast cancer to document their perspectives. We complemented the research with data from 14 semi-structured interviews with decision-makers in Quebec to discuss institutional issues raised by the use of genetic information by insurers. Our results provide findings on five main issues: (1) the reluctance to undergo genetic screening test due to insurability concerns, (2) insurers' interest in genetic information, (3) the duty to disclose genetic information to insurers, (4) the disclosure of potential impacts on insurability before genetic testing, and (5) the status of genetic information compared to other health data. Overall, both groups of participants (the women surveyed and the decision-makers interviewed) acknowledged having concerns about GD and reported a need for better communication tools discussing insurability risk. Our conclusions regarding concerns about GD and the need for better communication tools in the clinical setting may be transferable to the broader Canadian context.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,036
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#7,139
of 12,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,303
of 318,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#56
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,064 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
