Clinical application of a scale to assess genomic healthcare empowerment (GEmS): Process and illustrative case examples

Unraveling non-participation in genomic research: A complex interplay of barriers, facilitators, and sociocultural factors

Although genomic research offering next-generation sequencing (NGS) has increased the diagnoses of rare/ultra-rare disorders, populations experiencing health disparities infrequently participate in these studies. The factors underlying non-participation would most reliably be ascertained from individuals who have had the opportunity to participate, but decline. We thus enrolled parents of children and adult probands with undiagnosed disorders who had declined genomic research offering NGS with return of results with undiagnosed disorders (Decliners, n = 21) and compared their data to those who participated (Participants, n = 31). We assessed: (1) practical barriers and facilitators, (2) sociocultural factors-genomic knowledge and distrust, and (3) the value placed upon a diagnosis by those who declined participation. The primary findings were that residence in rural and medically underserved areas (MUA) and higher number of barriers were significantly associated with declining participation in the study. Exploratory analyses revealed multiple co-occurring practical barriers, greater emotional exhaustion and research hesitancy in the parents in the Decliner group compared to the Participants, with both groups identifying a similar number of facilitators. The parents in the Decliner group also had lower genomic knowledge, but distrust of clinical research was not different between the groups. Importantly, despite their non-participation, those in the Decliner group indicated an interest in obtaining a diagnosis and expressed confidence in being able to emotionally manage the ensuing results. Study findings support the concept that some families who decline participation in diagnostic genomic research may be experiencing pile-up with exhaustion of family resources - making participation in the genomic research difficult. This study highlights the complexity of the factors that underlie non-participation in clinically relevant NGS research. Thus, approaches to mitigating barriers to NGS research participation by populations experiencing health disparities need to be multi-pronged and tailored so that they can benefit from state-of -the art genomic technologies.

Participation in a national diagnostic research study: assessing the patient experience

INTRODUCTION

The Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN), a clinical research study funded by the National Institutes of Health, aims to provide answers for patients with undiagnosed conditions and generate knowledge about underlying disease mechanisms. UDN evaluations involve collaboration between clinicians and researchers and go beyond what is possible in clinical settings. While medical and research outcomes of UDN evaluations have been explored, this is the first formal assessment of the patient and caregiver experience.

METHODS

We invited UDN participants and caregivers to participate in focus groups via email, newsletter, and a private participant Facebook group. We developed focus group questions based on research team expertise, literature focused on patients with rare and undiagnosed conditions, and UDN participant and family member feedback. In March 2021, we conducted, recorded, and transcribed four 60-min focus groups via Zoom. Transcripts were evaluated using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

The adult undiagnosed focus group described the UDN evaluation as validating and an avenue for access to medical providers. They also noted that the experience impacted professional choices and helped them rely on others for support. The adult diagnosed focus group described the healthcare system as not set up for rare disease. In the pediatric undiagnosed focus group, caregivers discussed a continued desire for information and gratitude for the UDN evaluation. They also described an ability to rule out information and coming to terms with not having answers. The pediatric diagnosed focus group discussed how the experience helped them focus on management and improved communication. Across focus groups, adults (undiagnosed/diagnosed) noted the comprehensiveness of the evaluation. Undiagnosed focus groups (adult/pediatric) discussed a desire for ongoing communication and care with the UDN. Diagnosed focus groups (adult/pediatric) highlighted the importance of the diagnosis they received in the UDN. The majority of the focus groups noted a positive future orientation after participation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings are consistent with prior literature focused on the patient experience of rare and undiagnosed conditions and highlight benefits from comprehensive evaluations, regardless of whether a diagnosis is obtained. Focus group themes also suggest areas for improvement and future research related to the diagnostic odyssey.

The role of emotional sensitivity to probability in the decision to choose genetic testing

While the availability of genetic testing is rapidly increasing, many opt out of testing. The decision to test or not is emotionally charged, and both clinical research and theoretical work in psychology show that in emotional decisions, people often struggle to interpret and utilize risk information. Clinical research on genetic testing uptake also shows that feeling overwhelmed by numeric information may be a deterrent to testing. However, recent psychological research indicates that some portion of the population has greater emotional sensitivity to probability, (i.e., the extent to which emotional reactions to risk depend on probabilities) than others. We hypothesize that participants high in emotional sensitivity to probability will be more interested in genetic testing as an opportunity to seek greater precision in risk estimates and that this relationship is moderated by the testing context itself. In an online survey of a nationally representative sample (not recruited as patients), participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario describing a suspected diagnosis with an option for genetic testing. The scenario experimentally varied the pre-test probability estimate of the diagnosis (low or high) and whether the test results would result in certainty (ruling in or ruling out the diagnosis), or reduced uncertainty (providing a more precise individual risk estimate). Results indicated that emotional sensitivity to probability was a strong predictor of intention to test, particularly when the test allowed participants to rule out a diagnosis, reducing an already low probability to zero. These results highlight the way patients' individual characteristics interact with the testing context to guide decision-making and provide important insight into the way patients integrate risk probability information into intensely emotional decisions.