%A Leefmann,Jon %A Schaper,Manuel %A Schicktanz,Silke %D 2017 %J Frontiers in Sociology %C %F %G English %K Genetic responsibility,Systematic review,qualitative studies,Genetic counselling,Decision Making,Lay persons,professionals,Bioethics,family communication %Q %R 10.3389/fsoc.2016.00018 %W %L %M %P %7 %8 2017-January-24 %9 Original Research %+ Silke Schicktanz,Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center,Germany,silke.schicktanz@medizin.uni-goettingen.de %# %! Genetic responsibility: a systematic review in qualitative literature %* %< %T The Concept of “Genetic Responsibility” and Its Meanings: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Medical Sociology Literature %U https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2016.00018 %V 1 %0 JOURNAL ARTICLE %@ 2297-7775 %X The acquisition of genetic information (GI) confronts both the affected individuals and healthcare providers with difficult, ambivalent decisions. Genetic responsibility (GR) has become a key concept in both ethical and socioempirical literature addressing how and by whom decision-making with respect to the morality of GI is approached. However, despite its prominence, the precise meaning of the concept of GR remains vague. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review on the usage of the concept of GR in qualitative, socioempirical studies, to identify the main interpretations and to provide conceptual clarification. The review identified 75 studies with primarily an Anglo-American setting. The studies focused on several agents: the individual, the family, the parent, the healthcare professional, and the institution and refer to the concept of GR on the basis of either a rational/principle-oriented approach or an affective/relational approach. A subtype of the rational/principle-oriented approach is the reactive approach. The review shows how the concept of GR is useful for analyzing and theorizing about socioempirical findings within qualitative socioempirical studies and also reveals conceptual deficits in terms of insufficient theoretical accuracy and heterogeneity, and in the rarity of reflection on cultural variance. The vagueness and multiplicity of meanings for GR in socioempirical studies can be avoided by more normative-theoretical explication of the underlying premises. This would provide a higher degree of differentiation of empirical findings. Thereby, the complex findings associated with the individual and social implications of genetic testing in empirical studies can be better addressed from a theoretical point of view and can subsequently have a stronger impact on normative and policy debates.