Page 71 - Read Online

Page 65 Chu et al. J Transl Genet Genom 2023;7:66-78 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/jtgg.2023.01

Financial support and sponsorship
None.

Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate
The Pilot and Main Phases of the HKGP and all related studies in the HKGP were covered by ethics
approvals granted by the Central Institutional Review Board, the University of Hong Kong/Hospital
Authority Hong Kong West Cluster, the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong/New Territories East
Cluster, and the Department of Health (HKGP-2021-001, HKGP-2022-001, UW 21-413, 2021.423, LM 257/
2021). The study followed the principles set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were
informed of the study’s objectives and data confidentiality standards and provided written
informed consent to participate in the focus group meetings.

Consent for publication
Written informed consent for publication was obtained from all participants.

Copyright
© The Author(s) 2023.

REFERENCES
1. Middleton A, Milne R, Thorogood A, et al. Attitudes of publics who are unwilling to donate DNA data for research. Eur J Med Genet
2019;62:316-23. DOI PubMed PMC
2. Dheensa S, Lucassen A, Fenwick A. Fostering trust in healthcare: participants’ experiences, views, and concerns about the 100,000
genomes project. Eur J Med Genet 2019;62:335-41. DOI PubMed
3. Middleton A, Milne R, Almarri MA, et al. Global public perceptions of genomic data sharing: what shapes the willingness to donate
DNA and health data? Am J Hum Genet 2020;107:743-52. DOI PubMed PMC
4. Middleton A, Parry V, Borra J, Orviss K. A public backlash towards genomics is a risk all of us working in genomics must share.
Lancet Reg Health Eur 2022;15:100347. DOI PubMed PMC
5. Chu ATW, Fung JLF, Tong AHY, et al. Potentials and challenges of launching the pilot phase of Hong Kong Genome Project. J
Transl Genet Genom 2022;6:290-303. DOI
6. Hong Kong Genome Institute. Strategic Plan 2022-25. 2022. Available from: https://hkgp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HKGI-
Strategic-Plan-2022-25.pdf [Last accessed on 22 March 2023].
7. Clarke V, Braun V, Hayfield N. Thematic analysis. In: Smith J, editor. Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods.
London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2015. pp. 222-48. Available from: https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5018480#page=233
[Last accessed on 20 Mar 2023].
8. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Meth
2017;16:160940691773384. DOI
9. Lewis C, Sanderson S, Hill M, et al. Parents’ motivations, concerns and understanding of genome sequencing: a qualitative interview
study. Eur J Hum Genet 2020;28:874-84. DOI PubMed PMC
10. Mackley MP, Blair E, Parker M, Taylor JC, Watkins H, Ormondroyd E. Views of rare disease participants in a UK whole-genome
sequencing study towards secondary findings: a qualitative study. Eur J Hum Genet 2018;26:652-9. DOI PubMed PMC
11. Berrios C, James CA, Raraigh K, et al. Enrolling genomics research participants through a clinical setting: the impact of existing
clinical relationships on informed consent and expectations for return of research results. J Genet Couns 2018;27:263-73. DOI
PubMed PMC
12. Anderson JA, Meyn MS, Shuman C, et al. Parents perspectives on whole genome sequencing for their children: qualified enthusiasm?
J Med Ethics 2017;43:535-9. DOI PubMed
13. Chung CCY, Chu ATW, Chung BHY. Rare disease emerging as a global public health priority. Front Public Health 2022;10:1028545.
DOI PubMed PMC
14. Sanderson SC, Lewis C, Hill M, et al. Decision-making, attitudes, and understanding among patients and relatives invited to undergo
genome sequencing in the 100,000 Genomes Project: a multisite survey study. Genet Med 2022;24:61-74. DOI PubMed
15. Stiles D, Appelbaum PS. Cases in precision medicine: concerns about privacy and discrimination after genomic sequencing. Ann
Intern Med 2019;170:717-21. DOI PubMed PMC