TY - JOUR
T1 - Genetic counselling legislation and practice in cancer in EU Member States
AU - Mccrary, J. Matt
AU - Van Valckenborgh, Els
AU - Poirel, Hélène A.
AU - De Putter, Robin
AU - Van Rooij, Jeroen
AU - Horgan, Denis
AU - Dierks, Marie-Luise
AU - Antonova, Olga
AU - Brunet, Joan
AU - Chirita-Emandi, Adela
AU - Colas, Chrystelle
AU - Dalmas, Miriam
AU - Ehrencrona, Hans
AU - Grima, Claire
AU - Janavičius, Ramūnas
AU - Klink, Barbara
AU - Koczok, Katalin
AU - Krajc, Mateja
AU - Lace, Baiba
AU - Leitsalu, Liis
AU - Mistrik, Martin
AU - Paneque, Milena
AU - Primorac, Dragan
AU - Roetzer, Katharina M.
AU - Ronez, Joelle
AU - Slámová, Lucie
AU - Spanou, Elena
AU - Stamatopoulos, Kostas
AU - Stoklosa, Tomasz
AU - Strang-Karlsson, Sonja
AU - Szakszon, Katalin
AU - Szczałuba, Krzysztof
AU - Turner, Jacqueline
AU - Van Dooren, Marieke F.
AU - Van Zelst-Stams, Wendy A.G.
AU - Vassallo, Loredana-Maria
AU - Wadt, Karin A.W.
AU - Žigman, Tamara
AU - Ripperger, Tim
AU - Genuardi, Maurizio
AU - Van Den Bulcke, Marc
AU - Bergmann, Anke Katharina
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: Somatic and germline genetic alterations are significant drivers of cancer. Increasing integration of new technologies which profile these alterations requires timely, equitable and high-quality genetic counselling to facilitate accurate diagnoses and informed decision-making by patients and their families in preventive and clinical settings. This article aims to provide an overview of genetic counselling legislation and practice across European Union (EU) Member States to serve as a foundation for future European recommendations and action.
Methods: National legislative databases of all 27 Member States were searched using terms relevant to genetic counselling, translated as appropriate. Interviews with relevant experts from each Member State were conducted to validate legislative search results and provide detailed insights into genetic counselling practice in each country.
Results: Genetic counselling is included in national legislative documents of 22 of 27 Member States, with substantial variation in legal mechanisms and prescribed details (i.e. the 'who, what, when and where' of counselling). Practice is similarly varied. Workforce capacity (25 of 27 Member States) and genetic literacy (all Member States) were common reported barriers. Recognition and/or better integration of genetic counsellors and updated legislation and were most commonly noted as the 'most important change' which would improve practice.
Conclusions: This review highlights substantial variability in genetic counselling across EU Member States, as well as common barriers notwithstanding this variation. Future recommendations and action should focus on addressing literacy and capacity challenges through legislative, regulatory and/or strategic approaches at EU, national, regional and/or local levels.
AB - Background: Somatic and germline genetic alterations are significant drivers of cancer. Increasing integration of new technologies which profile these alterations requires timely, equitable and high-quality genetic counselling to facilitate accurate diagnoses and informed decision-making by patients and their families in preventive and clinical settings. This article aims to provide an overview of genetic counselling legislation and practice across European Union (EU) Member States to serve as a foundation for future European recommendations and action.
Methods: National legislative databases of all 27 Member States were searched using terms relevant to genetic counselling, translated as appropriate. Interviews with relevant experts from each Member State were conducted to validate legislative search results and provide detailed insights into genetic counselling practice in each country.
Results: Genetic counselling is included in national legislative documents of 22 of 27 Member States, with substantial variation in legal mechanisms and prescribed details (i.e. the 'who, what, when and where' of counselling). Practice is similarly varied. Workforce capacity (25 of 27 Member States) and genetic literacy (all Member States) were common reported barriers. Recognition and/or better integration of genetic counsellors and updated legislation and were most commonly noted as the 'most important change' which would improve practice.
Conclusions: This review highlights substantial variability in genetic counselling across EU Member States, as well as common barriers notwithstanding this variation. Future recommendations and action should focus on addressing literacy and capacity challenges through legislative, regulatory and/or strategic approaches at EU, national, regional and/or local levels.
KW - GENETIC
KW - GENETIC
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/281608
U2 - 10.1093/eurpub/ckae093
DO - 10.1093/eurpub/ckae093
M3 - Article
SN - 1464-360X
VL - 34
SP - 666
EP - 675
JO - European Journal of Public Health
JF - European Journal of Public Health
ER -