Close

Christine Patch

Dr Christine Patch

Principal Staff Scientist
Engagement and Society

“I am passionate about combining the science of genomics with the art of working alongside patients and their families coming to terms with the impact of genomic information in their lives. I enjoy working across disciplines and boundaries and believe this is the best way to harness the excitement and power of genomics for the benefit of individuals and health care. I want to contribute to the responsible uses of the technology in delivering effective, patient and family focused health services.”

Having started her professional career as a nurse Christine has worked in genetics since the late 1980’s. Following a role as consultant genetic counsellor in an NHS regional genetics centre, she was clinical lead for genetic counselling and Caldicott Guardian at Genomics England.  She has been involved in direct patient care; leading, developing and managing clinical genetic services and, latterly through her work at Genomics England contributing to the ambition of the UK’s genomic policy. Her PhD and post-doctoral work focused on evaluating genetic testing strategies. She maintained her nursing registration until March 2022, having recognised the major contribution that nurses and allied health professionals will make to genomic health care in the future.

My publications

  • All
  • 2023

Public engagement with genomics.

Middleton A; Adams A; Aidid H; Atutornu J; Boraschi D; Borra J; Bircan T; Burch C; Costa A; Dickinson A; Enticknap A; Galloway C; Gale F; Garlick E; Haydon E; Henriques S; Mitchell M; Milne R; Monaghan J; Morley KI; Muella Santos M; Olivares Boldu L; Olumogba F; Orviss K; Parry V; Patch C; Robarts L; Shingles S; Smidt C; Tomlin B; Parkinson S

Wellcome open research 2023;8;310

As detailed in its flagship report, Genome UK, the UK government recognises the vital role that broad public engagement across whole populations plays in the field of genomics. However, there is limited evidence about how to do this at scale. Most public audiences do not feel actively connected to science, are oftenunsure of the relevance to their lives and rarely talk to their family and friends about; we term this dis-connection a 'disengaged public audience'. We use a narrative review to explore: (i) UK attitudes towards genetics and genomics and what may influence reluctance to engage with these topics; (ii) innovative public engagement approaches that have been used to bring diverse public audiences into conversations about the technology. Whilst we have found some novel engagement methods that have used participatory arts, film, social media and deliberative methods, there is no clear agreement on best practice. We did not find a consistently used, evidence-based strategy for delivering public engagement about genomics across diverse and broad populations, nor a specific method that is known to encourage engagement from groups that have historically felt (in terms of perception) and been (in reality) excluded from genomic research. We argue there is a need for well-defined, tailor-made engagement strategies that clearly articulate the audience, the purpose and the proposed impact of the engagement intervention. This needs to be coupled with robust evaluation frameworks to build the evidence-base for population-level engagement strategies.

The genetic counsellor role in the United Kingdom : Position on behalf of the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (AGNC), Endorsed by the Genetic Counsellor Registration Board (GCRB) and Academy for Healthcare Science (AHCS).

Middleton A; Taverner N; Moreton N; Rizzo R; Houghton C; Watt C; Horton E; Levene S; Leonard P; Melville A; Ellis S; Tripathi V; Patch C; Jenkins E

European journal of human genetics : EJHG 2023;31;1;13-15

The legacy of language: What we say, and what people hear, when we talk about genomics.

Middleton A; Costa A; Milne R; Patch C; Robarts L; Tomlin B; Danson M; Henriques S; Atutornu J; Aidid U; Boraschi D; Galloway C; Yazmir K; Pettit S; Harcourt T; Connolly A; Li A; Cala J; Lake S; Borra J; Parry V

HGG advances 2023;4;4;100231

The way we "talk" about genetics plays a vital role in whether public audiences feel at ease in having conversations about it. Our research explored whether there was any difference between "what we say" and "what people hear" when providing information about genetics to community groups who are known to be missing from genomics datasets. We conducted 16 focus groups with 100 members of the British public who had limited familiarity with genomics and self-identified as belonging to communities with Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani ancestry as well as people of various ancestral heritage who came from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Participants were presented with spoken messages explaining genomics and their responses to these were analyzed. Results indicated that starting conversations that framed genomics through its potential benefits were met with cynicism and skepticism. Participants cited historical and present injustices as reasons for this as well as mistrust of private companies and the government. Instead, more productive conversations led with an acknowledgment that some people have questions-and valid concerns-about genomics, before introducing any of the details about the science. To diversify genomic datasets, we need to linguistically meet public audiences where they are at. Our research has demonstrated that everyday talk about genomics, used by researchers and clinicians alike, is received differently than it is likely intended. We may inadvertently be further disengaging the very audiences that diversity programs aim to reach.

What Difference Can Public Engagement in Genome Editing Make, and for Whom?

Milne R; Aidid U; Atutornu J; Bircan T; Boraschi D; Costa A; Henriques S; Patch C; Middleton A

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB 2023;23;7;58-60