Engaging rural communities in genetic research: challenges and opportunities

A survey on awareness, knowledge and preferences toward genetic testing among the United States general public

Aim: To understand awareness, knowledge and preferences regarding genetic testing among the USA general public. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey using a Qualtrics Panel. Results: Among 1600 respondents, 545 (34%) were White, 411 (26%) Black, 412 (26%) Hispanic or Latin(x) and 232 (15%) Asian. Most had heard of ancestry testing (87%) and genetic health risk testing (69%), but a third thought inherited genes were only a little or not at all responsible for obesity (36%) and mental health (33%). The majority preferred pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing (n = 74%) compared with reactive testing. Statistically significant differences between racial/ethnic groups and rural-urban respondents were observed. Conclusion: Most preferred pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing; however, about one-quarter preferred reactive testing. Preferences should be discussed during patient-clinician interactions.

REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research

Detecting cancer early is essential to improving cancer outcomes. Minoritized groups remain underrepresented in early detection cancer research, which means that findings and interventions are not generalisable across the population, thus exacerbating disparities in cancer outcomes. In light of these challenges, this paper sets out twelve recommendations to build relations of trust and include minoritized groups in ED cancer research. The Recommendations were formulated by a range of stakeholders at the 2022 REPRESENT consensus-building workshop and are based on empirical data, including a systematic literature review and two ethnographic case studies in the US and the UK. The recommendations focus on: Long-term relationships that build trust; Sharing available resources; Inclusive and accessible communication; Harnessing community expertise; Unique risks and benefits; Compensation and support; Representative samples; Demographic data; Post-research support; Sharing results; Research training; Diversifying research teams. For each recommendation, the paper outlines the rationale, specifications for how different stakeholders may implement it, and advice for best practices. Instead of isolated recruitment, public involvement and engagement activities, the recommendations here aim to advance mutually beneficial and trusting relationships between researchers and research participants embedded in ED cancer research institutions.

The application of long-read sequencing in clinical settings

Long-read DNA sequencing technologies have been rapidly evolving in recent years, and their ability to assess large and complex regions of the genome makes them ideal for clinical applications in molecular diagnosis and therapy selection, thereby providing a valuable tool for precision medicine. In the third-generation sequencing duopoly, Oxford Nanopore Technologies and Pacific Biosciences work towards increasing the accuracy, throughput, and portability of long-read sequencing methods while trying to keep costs low. These trades have made long-read sequencing an attractive tool for use in research and clinical settings. This article provides an overview of current clinical applications and limitations of long-read sequencing and explores its potential for point-of-care testing and health care in remote settings.

Engaging publics in biobanking and genetic research governance - a literature review towards informing practice in India

Background: There is growing interest in advancing biobanking and genetic research in many countries, including India. Concurrently, more importance is being placed on participatory approaches involving the public and other stakeholders in addressing ethical issues and policymaking as part of a broader governance approach. We analyse the tools, purposes, outcomes and limitations of engaging people towards biobanking and genetic research governance that have been undertaken worldwide, and explore their relevance to India. Methods: Papers to be reviewed were identified through a targeted literature search carried out using ProQuest and PubMed. Retrieved papers were analysed with the Rpackage for Qualitative Data Analysis using inductive coding and thematic analysis, guided by the Framework Method. Results: Empirical studies on public and community engagement in the context of biobanking and or genetic research show a predominance towards the end of the last decade, spanning 2007 to 2019. Numerous strategies-including public meetings, community durbars, focus group discussions, interviews, deliberations, citizen-expert panels and community advisory boards-have been used to facilitate communication, consultation and collaboration with people, at the level of general and specific publics. Engagement allowed researchers to understand how people's values, opinions and experiences related to the research process; and enabled participants to become partners within the conduct of research. Conclusions: Constructs such as 'co-production', 'engagement of knowledges', 'rules of engagement' and 'stewardship' emerge as significant mechanisms that can address the ethical challenges and the governance of biobanking and genetic research in India. Given the inherent diversity of the Indian population and its varying cultural values and beliefs, there is a need to invest time and research funds for engagement as a continuum of participatory activity, involving communication, consultation and collaboration in relation to biobanking and genetic research. Further research into these findings is required to explore their effective employment within India.

Engaging publics in biobanking and genetic research governance - a literature review towards informing practice in India

Background: There is growing interest in advancing biobanking and genetic research in many countries, including India. Concurrently, more importance is being placed on participatory approaches involving the public and other stakeholders in addressing ethical issues and policymaking as part of a broader governance approach. We analyse the tools, purposes, outcomes and limitations of engaging people towards biobanking and genetic research governance that have been undertaken worldwide, and explore their relevance to India. Methods: Papers to be reviewed were identified through a targeted literature search carried out using ProQuest and PubMed. Retrieved papers were analysed with the R package for Qualitative Data Analysis using inductive coding and thematic analysis, guided by the Framework Method. Results: Empirical studies on public and community engagement in the context of biobanking and or genetic research show a predominance towards the end of the last decade, spanning 2007 to 2019. Numerous strategies—including public meetings, community durbars, focus group discussions, interviews, deliberations, citizen-expert panels and community advisory boards—have been used to facilitate communication, consultation and collaboration with people, at the level of general and specific publics. Engagement allowed researchers to understand how people’s values, opinions and experiences related to the research process; and enabled participants to become partners within the conduct of research. Conclusions:  Constructs such as ‘co-production’, ‘engagement of knowledges’, ‘rules of engagement’ and ‘stewardship’ emerge as significant mechanisms that can address the ethical challenges and the governance of biobanking and genetic research in India. Given the inherent diversity of the Indian population and its varying cultural values and beliefs, there is a need to invest time and research funds for engagement as a continuum of participatory activity, involving communication, consultation and collaboration in relation to biobanking and genetic research. Further research into these findings is required to explore their effective employment within India

Public perception of predictive cancer genetic testing and research in Oregon

The potential for using widespread genetic testing to inform health care has become a viable option, particularly for heritable cancers. Yet, little is known about how to effectively communicate the benefits and risks of both personal genetic testing and participation in biorepositories that aid scientific advancements. Nationwide efforts are engaging communities in large genetic studies to better estimate the population-wide prevalence of heritable cancers but have been met with hesitance or declination to participate in some communities. To successfully engage an Oregon population in longitudinal research that includes predictive genetic testing for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk for cancer, researchers conducted 35 focus groups (two of which were held in Spanish) in 24 of Oregon's 36 counties to better understand knowledge and attitudes related to genetic testing and willingness to participate in longitudinal genetic research. A total of 203 adults (mean = 45.6 years; range 18-88), representing a range of education levels and prior knowledge of genetic research, participated in the focus groups. The majority (85%) of participants reported personal or family diagnoses of cancer (e.g., self, family, friends). A majority (87%) also reported a strong interest in cancer genetic testing and receiving genetic information about themselves. Nearly all focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion citing their families (e.g., children, close relatives, and extended family members) as key motivators for participation in genetic research. For example, participants reported interest in increasing personal knowledge about their own and their families' cancer risks in order to respond proactively, if a pathogenic variant was found. While most focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion describing barriers to predictive genetic, testing such as concerns about outcomes, the desire to learn about health risks in oneself mitigated or outweighed those fears for many participants. Other commonly reported concerns were related to potential mistrust of insurance companies, researchers, or institutions, or lack of knowledge about genetics, genetic testing, or genetic research. Participants, particularly in rural areas, highlighted critical factors for research recruitment, such as trust, personal interaction, public education about genetic research, and clear communication about study goals and processes. Our statewide findings reflect that public interest in predictive cancer genetic testing and cancer genetic research can surpass lack of knowledge of the complex topics, particularly when benefits for self and family are emphasized and when study considerations are well articulated.

Perspectives on communication and engagement with regard to collecting biospecimens and family health histories for cancer research in a rural Alaska Native community

Precision medicine initiatives, such as Cancer Breakthrough 2020, promise to improve cancer outcomes by tailoring treatment to an individual's genes, environment, and lifestyle. This promise will fall short unless researchers successfully engage diverse communities, including those with histories of medical and research abuse. We examined a rural Alaska Native community's viewpoints about biospecimen collection and storage; interest and recall in reporting family health history; and interest and engagement in biospecimen collection for conducting a genetic test for cancer. In 2014, four focus groups were held with 28 adult Alaska Native rural community members. Thematic analysis was performed after establishing a coding scheme by team consensus. Study participants shared interest in engaging in genetic cancer research and suggested ways to improve community engagement in research. These included transparency and continuous communication with researchers at all stages of the research, clear communication about the intent of the research, and that research and results take into consideration the community's needs. These suggestions may be beneficial for future efforts to expand precision medicine research in Alaska Native communities and similar, diverse populations.

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers towards genetic testing across three rural Illinois communities

Genetic testing is becoming more prevalent in detecting risk and guiding cancer treatment in our increasingly personalized medicine model. However, few studies have examined underserved populations' perceptions of genetic testing, especially those of rural dwelling populations. We asked residents of three rural communities to complete a self-administered survey gauging their knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers for genetic testing. 64.8% of participants of the overall study completed the survey. Most participants were aware of genetic testing for cancer screening (69.0%) and would likely share results with their family (88.5% if it indicated low risk, 85.9% for high risk). Some barriers were noted, including genetic testing not offered in a clinic nearby (46.9%), insurance company knowing the results (54.0%), cost (49.1%), and no accessible genetic counselors with whom to discuss results (45.6%). Our rural participants were generally knowledgeable about genetic testing, but this may not be reflective of all rural populations. Opportunities exist to mitigate use barriers, expand the utilization of telehealth services and regulatory agency-approved assays, and increase knowledge regarding privacy and protections offered by statute, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (US) and General Data Protection Regulation (Europe).

An Approach to Integrating Health Disparities within Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Education

Health disparities are preventable differences in the incidence, prevalence and burden of disease among communities targeted by gender, geographic location, ethnicity and/or socio-economic status. While biomedical research has identified partial origin(s) of divergent burden and impact of disease, the innovation needed to eradicate health disparities in the United States requires unique engagement from biomedical engineers. Increasing awareness of the prevalence and consequences of health disparities is particularly attractive to today's undergraduates, who have undauntedly challenged paradigms believed to foster inequality. Here, the Department of Biomedical Engineering at The City College of New York (CCNY) has leveraged its historical mission of access-and-excellence to integrate the study of health disparities into undergraduate BME curricula. This article describes our novel approach in a multiyear study that: (i) Integrated health disparities modules at all levels of the required undergraduate BME curriculum; (ii) Developed opportunities to include impacts of health disparities into undergraduate BME research projects and mentored High School summer STEM training; and (iii) Established health disparities-based challenges as BME capstone design and/or independent entrepreneurship projects. Results illustrate the rising awareness of health disparities among the youngest BMEs-to-be, as well as abundant undergraduate desire to integrate health disparities within BME education and training.