Comparing preferences for return of genome sequencing results assessed with rating and ranking items

Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women

Sequencing technologies can inform individuals’ risks for multiple conditions, supporting population-level screening approaches. Prior research examining interest in genetic testing has not generally examined the context of population-based approaches offered in routine healthcare or among ethnically diverse populations. Cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening could be offered broadly to women of reproductive age. This study therefore examined interest in these tests when offered as part of routine care, and predictors of interest, among an ethnically diverse sample of women aged 20–35. We conducted an online English-language survey of 450 women; 39% identified as Latina. We examined predictors of interest for two outcomes, interest in testing in the next year and level of interest, in multivariable logistic regression models and stratified analyses by Latina ethnicity. More than half of respondents reported being interested in cancer predisposition testing (55%) and carrier screening (56%) in the next year; this did not differ by ethnicity. About 26% reported being very interested in cancer predisposition testing and 27% in carrier screening. Latina respondents (32%) were more likely to be very interested in cancer predisposition testing than non-Latina respondents (22%; p < 0.03). In multivariable models, having higher worry about genetic risks, higher genetic knowledge, and higher perceived importance of genetic information were associated with higher interest across multiple models. Predictors of interest were generally similar by ethnicity. Our findings show substantial interest in both cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening among young women as part of routine healthcare with similar interest between Latina and non-Latina women. Efforts to broadly offer such testing could be important in improving access to genetic information. It will be critical to develop tools to help healthcare providers communicate about genetic testing and to address the needs of those who have less prior knowledge about genetics to support informed decision making.

Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return.

Pharmacists' and patients' perceptions about the importance of pharmacist services types to improve medication adherence among patients with diabetes in Indonesia

BACKGROUND

Various pharmacist services are available to improve medication adherence, including consultation, brochure, etc. Challenges arise on which services are best implemented in practice. Knowledge about patients' and pharmacists' preferences can help to prioritize services. This study explores the pharmacists' and patients' perceptions about the importance of pharmacist services to improve medication adherence among patients with diabetes in Indonesia.

METHODS

This questionnaire-based cross-sectional study involved adult outpatients with diabetes type 2 and pharmacists from community health centers (CHCs) and hospitals in Surabaya, Indonesia. Random sampling was used to identify 57 CHCs in the study. In addition, based on convenient sampling, three hospitals participated. All pharmacists working at the CHCs and hospitals, who were willing to participate, were included in the study. For patients, minimum sample size was calculated using Slovin's formula. Patients and pharmacists were asked to rank five pharmacist service types (consultation, brochure/leaflet, patient group discussion, medication review, and phone call refill reminder) according to their importance to improve medication adherence. A face validity test of the self-developed questionnaire was conducted before the data collection. Rank ordered probit models were estimated (STATA 15th software).

RESULTS

A total of 457 patients from CHCs, 579 patients from hospitals, and 99 pharmacists from both medical facilities were included. Consultation (CHC patients 56.0% vs hospital patients 39.7% vs pharmacists 75.2%) and brochure (CHC patients 23.2% vs hospital patients 27.5% vs pharmacists 11.9%) were the most preferred pharmacist services. Patients with experience getting medication information from pharmacists valued consultation higher than brochure and patient group discussions. Older patients ranked a brochure higher than other services. Patients without formal education in CHCs had a lower probability of giving a high rank to a brochure to improve medication adherence. There was significant positive correlation between the ranking of phone call refill reminder and medication review (0.6940) for patients in CHCs.

CONCLUSION

For both patients and pharmacists, consultation, brochure, and group discussion were the highest-ranked services. Education, age, experience with pharmacist services, and medical facility features need to be considered when evaluating which pharmacist services to implement in Indonesia.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.