GeneLiFT: A novel test to facilitate rapid screening of genetic literacy in a diverse population undergoing genetic testing

Negative results from DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases: the recipients' experience

DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases holds promise for advancing personalized medicine and improving public health. Yet as most individuals pursuing such screening receive negative results, the return of results process must ensure that negative results and their implications are clearly understood. We explored the experiences of adults who received negative results from such screening as part of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics consortium Phase 3 project (eMERGE-3) at Columbia University. In addition to a laboratory report and a standard counseling letter explaining the negative results, participants were randomized to receive (or not) a vignette explaining the results. A diverse cohort of 437 adult participants completed both baseline and post-result surveys. Many participants reported motivations that did not match the screening goals and included hope for diagnosis and family disease risk. A quarter of participants reported not feeling confident explaining their results to others (n = 105, 24%), and those who did not receive the vignette were less confident than those who did (29% versus 19% respectively; p-value = 0.02). Open-text responses about personal and family members' reactions to the results suggested that some perceived an exaggerated benefit from the negative result and might forgo more appropriate genetic testing. Our findings highlight the complexity of returning negative results and raise concerns that participants might forgo more suitable genetic testing. Future research is needed to compare the efficacy of different forms of ancillary materials on individuals' comprehension of negative results.

Schoolhouse risk: Can we mitigate the polygenic Pygmalion effect?

BACKGROUND

Although limited in predictive accuracy, polygenic scores (PGS) for educational outcomes are currently available to the public via direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. Further, there is a growing movement to apply PGS in educational settings via 'precision education.' Prior scholarship highlights the potentially negative impacts of such applications, as disappointing results may give rise a "polygenic Pygmalion effect." In this paper two studies were conducted to identify factors that may mitigate or exacerbate negative impacts of PGS.

METHODS

Two studies were conducted. In each, 1188 students were randomized to one of four conditions: Low-percentile polygenic score for educational attainment (EA-PGS), Low EA-PGS + Mitigating information, Low EA-PGS + Exacerbating information, or Control. Regression analyses were used to examine differences between conditions.

RESULTS

In Study 1, participants randomized to Control reported significantly higher on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Competence Scale (CS), Academic Efficacy Scale (AES) and Educational Potential Scale (EPS). CS was significantly higher in the Low EA-PGS + Mitigating information condition. CS and AES were significantly lower in the Low EA-PGS + Exacerbating information condition compared to the Low EA-PGS + Mitigating information condition. In Study 2, participants randomized to Control reported significantly higher CS and AES. Pairwise comparisons did not show significant differences in CS and AES. Follow-up pairwise comparisons using Tukey P-value correction did not find significant associations between non-control conditions.

CONCLUSION

These studies replicated the polygenic Pygmalion effect yet were insufficiently powered to detect significant effects of mitigating contextual information. Regardless of contextual information, disappointing EA-PGS results were significantly associated with lower assessments of self-esteem, competence, academic efficacy, and educational potential.

Variability in conceptualizations and measurement of genetic literacy

Objective

To examine definitions and measures for genetic literacy in the published literature, and the associations between commonly utilized measures.

Methods

We completed a systematic review searching eight databases for empirical articles containing quantitative measures of genetic literacy. Articles were assessed for study properties, definitions, and measure characteristics. An online survey was then completed by 531 U.S. adults to examine correlations between frequently used genetic literacy measures.

Results

92 articles met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Articles rarely defined genetic literacy, and existing definitions showed inconsistencies in the knowledge and cognitive domains that comprise genetic literacy. Definitions frequently included objective conceptual knowledge, comprehension, and applied knowledge, however most measures only assessed objective or subjective knowledge. Genetic literacy measures were infrequently assessed for psychometric properties and the content domains assessed by measures varied considerably. Correlation analyses showed weak to moderate relationships between genetic literacy measures.

Conclusion

A comprehensive and consistent definition of genetic literacy and its cognitive and conceptual domains should be implemented to inform the development of concordant measurement tools and improve research and clinical care in genetics.

Innovation

We examine and compare definitions and measures of genetic literacy, suggest a more comprehensive definition, and recommendations for research development.

Readiness for Parkinson's disease genetic testing and counseling in patients and their relatives in urban settings in the Dominican Republic

Genetic testing for Parkinson's disease (PD) is increasing globally, and genetic counseling is an important service that provides information and promotes understanding about PD genetics and genetic testing. PD research studies have initiated outreach to underrepresented regions in North America, including regions in Latin America, such as the Dominican Republic (DR); some studies may include return of genetic test results. Thus, understanding what individuals know about PD, genetic testing for PD, and their interest in speaking with a genetic counselor, is crucial when assessing readiness. In this cross-sectional study, a survey was distributed to people with Parkinson's disease (PwP) and their unaffected biological relatives in the DR. Questions assessed genetics knowledge, attitude toward genetic testing, and interest in genetic testing and counseling. Of 45 participants, 69% scored the maximum on the attitude scale, indicating an overall positive attitude toward genetic testing; 95% indicated interest in genetic testing for PD, and 98% were at least somewhat interested in meeting with a genetic counselor. The mean PD genetics knowledge score was similar to previously published data. Through free text responses, participants expressed a desire to know more about PD treatment and management, prevention, cause, and their personal risk for PD. These results provide further evidence of readiness for genetic testing in this country but also underscore some gaps in knowledge that should be addressed with targeted educational efforts, as part of building genetic testing and counseling capacities.

Defining orienting language in the genetic counseling process

We defined orienting language in genetic counseling sessions as 'language intended to direct focus to a particular aspect of the counseling process; a physical, emotional, or cognitive space; or an outcome'. This is a concept expanding on the idea of 'orientation' statements in the genetic counseling literature. We propose that orienting language is an important component of effective communication in the genetic counseling process. Our goals were to document the presence of orienting language in genetic counseling sessions with practicing genetic counselors and simulated clients, categorize types of orienting language, and evaluate the purpose of this language. A sample of Genetic Counseling Video Project videotape transcripts was evaluated through consensus coding for orienting language. Orienting language was found to be abundant in the dataset evaluated. Each excerpt was coded for orienting language Strategies and Purpose. The six categories of Strategy codes identified were Logical Consistency, Providing Context, Guidance, Structuring the Session, Anchoring, and Procedural. The six categories of Purpose codes were Counselee Understanding, Guidance, Engagement, Promoting Effective Counselor/Counselee Interactions, Counselee Adaptation, and Relationship Building. Results support our expanded definition of orienting language, which was similar in both cancer and prenatal specialties and across years of counselor experience. Orienting language acts as a series of signposts to help clients navigate the sometimes complex and unfamiliar territory of a genetic counseling session. The introduction of this term into the genetic counseling literature allows its use by genetic counselors to be further evaluated and potentially incorporated into genetic counselor training.

The effect of genetic education on the referral of patients to genetic evaluation: Findings from a national survey of nephrologists

PURPOSE

The success of genomic medicine hinges on the implementation of genetic knowledge in clinical settings. In novel subspecialties, it requires that clinicians refer patients to genetic evaluation or testing, however referral is likely to be affected by genetic knowledge.

METHODS

An online survey was administered to self-identified nephrologists working in the United States. Nephrologists' demographic characteristics, genetic education, confidence in clinical genetics, genetic knowledge, and referral rates of patients to genetic evaluation were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 201 nephrologists completed the survey. All reported treating patients with genetic forms of kidney disease, and 37% had referred <5 patients to genetic evaluation. A third had limited basic genetic knowledge. Most nephrologists (85%) reported concerns regarding future health insurance eligibility as a barrier to referral to genetic testing. Most adult nephrologists reported insufficient genetic education during residency (65%) and fellowship training (52%). Lower rating of genetic education and lower knowledge in recognizing signs of genetic kidney diseases were significantly associated with lower number of patients referred to the genetic evaluation (P < .001). Most nephrologists reported that improving their genetic knowledge is important for them (>55%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to enhance nephrologists' genetic education to increase genetic testing use in nephrology.

Public attitudes toward cloud computing and willingness to share personal health records (PHRs) and genome data for health care research in Japan

Japan's government aims to promote the linkage of medical records, including medical genomic testing data and personal health records (PHRs), via cloud computing (the cloud). However, linking national medical records and using them for health care research can be controversial. Additionally, many ethical issues with using cloud networks with health care and genome data have been noted. However, no research has yet explored the Japanese public's opinions about their PHRs, including genome data, being shared for health care research or the use of the cloud for storing and analyzing such data. Therefore, we conducted a survey in March 2021 to clarify the public's attitudes toward sharing their PHRs, including genome data and using the cloud for health care research. We analyzed data to experimentally create digital health basic literacy scores (BLSs). Our results showed that the Japanese public had concerns about data sharing that overlapped with structural cloud computing issues. The effect of incentives on changes in participants' willingness to share data (WTSD) was limited. Instead, there could be a correlation between WTSD and BLSs. Finally, we argue that it is vital to consider not only researchers but also research participants as value cocreators in health care research conducted through the cloud to overcome both parties' vulnerability.

Japanese Translation and Validation of Genomic Knowledge Measure in the International Genetics Literacy and Attitudes Survey (iGLAS-GK)

Knowledge of genetics is essential for understanding the results of genetic testing and its implications. Recent advances in genomic research have allowed us to predict the risk of onset of common diseases based on individual genomic information. It is anticipated that more people will receive such estimates of risks based on their genomic data. However, currently, there is no measure for genetic knowledge that includes post-genome sequencing advancements in Japan. In this study, we translated the genomic knowledge measure in the International Genetics Literacy and Attitudes Survey (iGLAS-GK) into Japanese and validated it in a general Japanese adult population (n = 463). The mean score was 8.41 (SD 2.56, range 3–17). The skewness and kurtosis were 0.534 and 0.088, respectively, and the distribution showed a slightly positive skewness. Exploratory factor analysis proposed a six-factor model. Results for 16 of the 20 items of the Japanese version of the iGLAS-GK were comparable to those from previous studies in other populations. These results indicate that the Japanese version is reliable and can be used to measure the genomic knowledge of adults in the general population, and this version of the knowledge measure maintains the multidimensional structure for assessing genomic knowledge.

Understanding changes in genetic literacy over time and in genetic research participants

As genomic and personalized medicine becomes mainstream, assessing and understanding the public's genetic literacy is paramount. Because genetic research drives innovation and involves much of the public, it is equally important to assess its impact on genetic literacy. We designed a survey to assess genetic literacy in three ways (familiarity, knowledge, and skills) and distributed it to two distinct samples: 2,050 members of the general population and 2,023 individuals currently enrolled in a large-scale genetic research study. We compared these data to a similar survey implemented in 2013. The results indicate that familiarity with basic genetic terms in 2021 (M = 5.36 [range 1-7], p < 0.001) and knowledge of genetic concepts in 2021 (M = 9.06 [56.6% correct], p = 0.002) are significantly higher compared to 2013 (familiarity: M = 5.08 [range 1-7]; knowledge: M = 8.72 [54.5% correct]). Those currently enrolled in a genetic study were also significantly more familiar with genetic terms (M = 5.79 [range 1-7], p < 0.001) and more knowledgeable of genetic concepts (M = 10.57 [66.1% correct], p < 0.001), and they scored higher in skills (M = 3.57 [59.5% correct], p < 0.001) than the general population (M = 5.36 [range 1-7]; M = 9.06 [56.6% correct]; M = 2.65 [44.2% correct]). The results suggest that genetic literacy is improving over time, with room for improvement. We conclude that educational interventions are needed to ensure familiarity with and comprehension of basic genetic concepts and suggest further exploration of the impact of genetic research participation on genetic literacy to determine mechanisms for potential interventions.

The New Precision Stewards?

The precision health era is likely to reduce and respond to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Our stewardship and precision efforts share terminology, seeking to deliver the “right drug, at the right dose, at the right time.” Already, rapid diagnostic testing, phylogenetic surveillance, and real-time outbreak response provide just a few examples of molecular advances we dub “precision stewardship.” However, the AMR causal factors range from the molecular to that of global health policy. Mirroring the cross-sectoral nature of AMR science, the research addressing the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of AMR ranges across academic scholarship. As the rise of AMR is accompanied by an escalating sense of its moral and social significance, what is needed is a parallel field of study. In this paper, we offer a gap analysis of this terrain, or an agenda for “the ELSI of precision stewardship.” In the first section, we discuss the accomplishments of a multi-decade U.S. national investment in ELSI research attending to the advances in human genetics. In the next section, we provide an overview of distinct ELSI topics pertinent to AMR. The distinctiveness of an ELSI agenda for precision stewardship suggests new opportunities for collaboration to build the stewardship teams of the future.

The Impact of Proband Indication for Genetic Testing on the Uptake of Cascade Testing Among Relatives

Although multiple factors can influence the uptake of cascade genetic testing, the impact of proband indication has not been studied. We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study comparing cascade genetic testing rates among relatives of probands who received either diagnostic germline testing or non-indication-based proactive screening via next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multigene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) and/or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The proportion of probands with a medically actionable (positive) finding were calculated based on genes associated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 conditions, HCS genes, and FH genes. Among probands with a positive finding, cascade testing rates and influencing factors were assessed. A total of 270,715 probands were eligible for inclusion in the study (diagnostic n = 254,281,93.9%; proactive n = 16,434, 6.1%). A positive result in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition was identified in 10,520 diagnostic probands (4.1%) and 337 proactive probands (2.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 3,305 diagnostic probands (31.4%) and 36 proactive probands (10.7%) (p < 0.0001). A positive result in an HCS gene was returned to 23,272 diagnostic probands (9.4%) and 970 proactive probands (6.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 6,611 diagnostic probands (28.4%) and 89 proactive probands (9.2%) (p < 0.0001). Cascade testing due to a positive result in an HCS gene was more commonly pursued when the diagnostic proband was White, had a finding in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition, or had a personal history of cancer, or when the proactive proband was female. A positive result in an FH gene was returned to 1,647 diagnostic probands (25.3%) and 67 proactive probands (0.62%), leading to cascade testing among families of 360 diagnostic probands (21.9%) and 4 proactive probands (6.0%) (p < 0.01). Consistently higher rates of cascade testing among families of diagnostic probands may be due to a perceived urgency because of personal or family history of disease. Due to the proven clinical benefit of cascade testing, further research on obstacles to systematic implementation and uptake of testing for relatives of any proband with a medically actionable variant is warranted.

Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.

Physician Communication and Patient Understanding of Molecular Testing Terminology

BACKGROUND

The use of molecular testing in oncology is rapidly expanding. The aim of this study was to determine how oncologists describe molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology being used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty conversations between oncologists and patients about molecular testing were observed, and the used technical terms were noted by the researcher. Patients were interviewed post-conversation to assess their understanding of the noted technical terms. A patient understanding score was calculated for each participant. Comparisons of the terms were conducted using χ² tests, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA when appropriate.

RESULTS

Sixty-one unique technical terms were used by oncologists, to describe seven topics. "Mutation" was a challenging term for patients to understand with 48.8% (21/43 mentions) of participants correctly defining the term. "Genetic testing" and "Gene" were understood a little more than half the time (53.3%; 8/15 and 56.4%; 22/39 respectively). "DNA" was well understood (80%; 12/15). There was no correlation between the terms being defined by the oncologist in the conversation, and the likelihood of the patient providing a correct definition. White participants were significantly more likely to understand both "mutation" and "genetic testing" than non-White participants. Forty-two percent (n = 25) of participants had an understanding score below 50%, and a higher family income was significantly correlated with a higher score.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that oncologists use variable terminology to describe molecular testing, which is often not understood. Because oncologists defining the terms did not correlate with understanding, it is imperative to develop new, improved methods to explain molecular testing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The use of molecular testing is expanding in oncology, yet little is known about how effectively clinicians are communicating information about molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology used. The results of this study indicate that patients do not understand some of the terminology used by their clinicians and that clinicians tend to use highly variable terminology to describe molecular testing. These results highlight the need to develop and implement effective methods to explain molecular testing terminology to patients to ensure that patients have the tools to make autonomous and informed decisions about their treatment.

Mini-Review: Genetic Literacy and Engagement With Genetic Testing for Autism Spectrum Disorder

As genomic and personalized medicine is integrated into healthcare, the need for patients to understand and make decisions about their own genetic makeup increases. Genetic literacy, or one’s knowledge of genetic principles and their applications, measures an individual’s ability to apply genetic information to their own treatment. Increased genetic literacy can improve comprehension of genetic tests and therefore increase participation in testing to detect and treat genetic disorders. It can also help providers understand and explain genetic information to their patients. However, current research indicates that the population’s genetic literacy is generally low. Because many medical students, providers, and patients cannot adequately apply genetic information to their health, new and beneficial genetic technologies can be underused. More specifically, though genetic testing is recommended at the time of diagnosis for those affected by autism spectrum disorder (ASD), as few as 22% of families undergo genetic testing after diagnosis. While ASD, a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by impaired social communication and restricted interests, has both genetic and environmental risk, genetic testing can give clinicians useful information and help families avoid potentially painful and costly tests, even when many families do not receive a “positive” genetic result through microarrays or gene panels. Improving genetic literacy in populations affected by ASD can also improve attitudes toward genetic testing, thereby ensuring access to genetic health risk information. In this mini review, we discuss the current literature describing genetic literacy and genetic testing rates for ASD.

GeneLiFT: A novel test to facilitate rapid screening of genetic literacy in a diverse population undergoing genetic testing

With the broader introduction of genomic medicine in research and clinical care, an increasing number of persons are offered genetic testing. Many factors, including genetic literacy, may impact the utilization of genetic results by patients and their families. We developed a rapid, self-administered measure of genetic literacy, called Genetic Literacy Fast Test (GeneLiFT). We next evaluated the association of GeneLiFT scores with the comprehension of limitations of genomic medicine in participants undergoing genetic testing in the NIH-sponsored eMERGE III study at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. All participants underwent genetic screening for variants in 74 actionable genes associated with adult-onset disorders. A diverse cohort of 724 participants completed the survey (60% women, 45% less than 40 years old, and 53% self-reported White non-Hispanic ancestry). The GeneLiFT was validated using known group differences based on education, health literacy, and numeracy, and with questions assessing genetic knowledge. GeneLiFT identified multiple standard genetics terms, that is, jargon, not recognized by more than 50% of participants (including actionability and pathogenicity). Low genetic literacy, identified in 210 participants (29%), was significantly associated with poor understanding of the limitations of genetic testing (p-values < 10-9 ). This association was independent of education, health literacy, and numeracy levels, highlighting the importance of directly measuring genetic literacy. Low genetic literacy was also associated with low satisfaction with the informed consent process. GeneLiFT is a practical tool for rapid assessment of genetic literacy in large studies or clinical care. GeneLiFT will allow future research to efficiently assess the role of genetic literacy on the clinical impact of genetic testing.