title: Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  With rapid advances in genetic technologies, new genetic information becomes available much faster today than just a few years ago. This has raised questions about whether clinicians have a duty to recontact eligible patients when new genetic information becomes available and, if such duties exist, how they might be implemented in practice.
  
  
  METHODS
  We report the results of a systematic literature search on the ethical, legal, social (including psychological), and practical issues involved in recontacting former patients who received genetic services. We identified 1,428 articles, of which 61 are covered in this review.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The empirical evidence available indicates that most but not all patients value being recontacted. A minority of (older) articles conclude that recontacting should be a legal duty. Most authors consider recontacting to be ethically desirable but practically unfeasible. Various solutions to overcome these practical barriers have been proposed, involving efforts of laboratories, clinicians, and patients.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  To advance the discussion on implementing recontacting in clinical genetics, we suggest focusing on the question of in what situations recontacting might be regarded as good standard of care. To this end, reaching a professional consensus, obtaining more extensive empirical evidence, and developing professional guidelines are important.
authors.affiliation: Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Ellen
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Otten
authors.affiliation: Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Mirjam
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Plantinga
authors.affiliation: Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Erwin
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Birnie
authors.affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Marian A
authors.identifier: 0000000233816431
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Verkerk
authors.affiliation: 1] Faculty of Medicine, Clinical Ethics and Law, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK [2] Wessex Clinical Genetic Service, Southampton, UK.
authors.forename: Anneke M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Lucassen
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Adelita V
authors.initials: AV
authors.lastname: Ranchor
authors.affiliation: Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Irene M
authors.initials: IM
authors.lastname: Van Langen
mesh_terms: D001315:Australia; D002170:Canada; D033002:Duty to Recontact / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005062:European Union; D005820:Genetic Testing / Q000379:methods* / Q000639:trends*; D006801:Humans; D007194:India; D007557:Israel; D007603:Jurisprudence; D014481:United States