Engagement and return of results preferences among a primarily African American genomic sequencing research cohort

The HEALthy Brain and Child Development Study (HBCD) experience: Recruiting and retaining diverse families in a longitudinal, multi-method early childhood study

The HEALthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) Study, a multi-site prospective longitudinal cohort study, will examine human brain, cognitive, behavioral, social, and emotional development beginning prenatally and planned through early childhood. Given its aim to examine the impact of adversity and protective factors on children's outcomes, the recruitment and retention of families who have a wide diversity in experiences are essential. However, the unfortunate history of inequitable treatment of underrepresented families in research and the risks with which some participants will contend (e.g., substance use) makes their recruitment and retention in social science and neuroscience research particularly challenging. This article explores strategies that the HBCD Study has developed to recruit and retain participants, including marginalized, underserved, and hard-to-reach populations, capitalizing on the extant literature and the researchers' own experiences. In this paper, we address strategies to recruit and retain families within HBCD, including: 1) creating experiences that engender trust and promote relationships; 2) maintaining connections with participants over time; 3) ensuring appropriate compensation and supports; 4) considerations for study materials and procedures; and 5) community engagement. The implementation of these strategies may increase representation and inclusiveness, as well as improve the quality of the resulting data.

Interrogating the Value of Return of Results for Diverse Populations: Perspectives from Precision Medicine Researchers

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, the return of results (ROR) in precision medicine research (PMR) has become increasingly routine. Calls for individual rights to research results have extended the "duty to report" from clinically useful genetic information to traits and ancestry results. ROR has thus been reframed as inherently beneficial to research participants, without a needed focus on who benefits and how. This paper addresses this gap, particularly in the context of PMR aimed at increasing participant diversity, by providing investigator and researcher perspectives on and questions about the assumed value of ROR in PMR.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of investigators and researchers across federally funded PMR studies in three national consortia, as well as observations of study activities, focused on how PM researchers conceptualize diversity and implement inclusive practices across research stages, including navigating ROR.

RESULTS

Interviewees (1) validated the value of ROR as a benefit of PMR, while others (2) questioned the benefit of clinically actionable results to individuals in the absence of sufficient resources for translating findings into health care for diverse and disadvantaged populations; (3) expressed uncertainties in applying the presumed value of ROR as a benefit for non-clinical results; and (4) and debated when the promise of the value of ROR may undermine trust in PMR, and divert efforts to return value beyond ROR.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion among PM researchers and investigators raise unique ethical questions where unexamined assumptions of the value of ROR inform study recruitment efforts to enroll minoritized and under-represented populations. A lack of consideration for resources and infrastructure necessary to translate ROR into actionable information may hinder trustworthy community-research relationships. Thus, we argue for a more intentional interrogation of ROR practices as an offer of benefit and for whom.

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research

BACKGROUND

A fundamental ethical issue in African genomics research is how socio-cultural factors impact perspectives, acceptance, and utility of genomic information, especially in stigmatizing conditions like orofacial clefts (OFCs). Previous research has shown that gatekeepers (e.g., religious, political, family or community leaders) wield considerable influence on the decision-making capabilities of their members, including health issues. Thus, their perspectives can inform the design of engagement strategies and increase exposure to the benefits of genomics testing/research. This is especially important for Africans underrepresented in genomic research. Our study aims to investigate the perspectives of gatekeepers concerning genomic risk information (GRI) in the presence of OFCs in a sub-Saharan African cohort.

METHODS

Twenty-five focus group discussions (FGDs) consisting of 214 gatekeepers (religious, community, ethnic leaders, and traditional birth attendants) in Lagos, Nigeria, explored the opinions of participants on genomic risk information (GRI), OFC experience, and the possibility of involvement in collaborative decision-making in Lagos, Nigeria. Transcripts generated from audio recordings were coded and analyzed in NVivo using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes-knowledge, beliefs, and willingness to act-emerged from exploring the perspective of gatekeepers about GRI in this group. We observed mixed opinions regarding the acceptance of GRI. Many participants believed their role is to guide and support members when they receive results; this is based on the level of trust their members have in them. However, participants felt they would need to be trained by medical experts to do this. Also, religious and cultural beliefs were crucial to determining participants' understanding of OFCs and the acceptance and utilization of GRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating cultural sensitivity into public engagement could help develop appropriate strategies to manage conflicting ideologies surrounding genomic information in African communities. This will allow for more widespread access to the advances in genomics research in underrepresented populations. We also recommend a synergistic relationship between community health specialists/scientists, and community leaders, including spiritual providers to better understand and utilize GRI.

Views of adults living with sickle cell disease on the theoretical return of secondary genomic findings

PURPOSE

Although the body of research investigating research participants' opinions on the return of actionable secondary genomic findings grows, there has been limited study of individuals with genetic conditions, such as sickle cell disease (SCD). It is imperative that the views of diverse research participants on return of results (RoR) be investigated and rooted in the context of advancing health equity in genomics research.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 30 adults living with SCD with differing insurance coverages and utilized a directed content analysis to derive themes.

RESULTS

Study findings show that living with SCD is a key influence on views of RoR. Participants were in favor of RoR while expressing concern regarding the burden RoR would place on their SCD management. Respondents also expressed an expectation for researchers to devote resources toward seeking ancillary care downstream and discussed how barriers faced when navigating SCD would inform their access to ancillary care.

CONCLUSION

Research participants living with chronic genetic conditions such as SCD are generally in favor of RoR but anticipate experiencing barriers to care similar to those faced navigating their SCD. Understanding the views of diverse cohorts on RoR will help researchers better understand downstream barriers participants may face.

Effectiveness of multimodal participant recruitment in SPARK, a large, online longitudinal research study of autism

Background

SPARK launched in 2016 to build a US cohort of autistic individuals and their family members. Enrollment includes online consent to share data and optional consent to provide saliva for genomic analysis. SPARK's recruitment strategies include social media and support of a nation-wide network of clinical sites. This study evaluates SPARK's recruitment strategies to enroll a core study population.

Methods

Individuals who joined between January 31, 2018, and May 29, 2019 were included in the analysis. Data include sociodemographic characteristics, clinical site referral, the website URL used to join, how the participant heard about SPARK, enrollment completion (online registration, study consents, and returning saliva sample), and completion of the baseline questionnaire. Logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the odds of core participant status (completing enrollment and baseline questionnaire) by recruitment strategy.

Results

In total, 31,715 individuals joined during the study period, including 40% through a clinical site. Overall, 88% completed online registration, 46% returned saliva, and 38% were core participants. Those referred by a clinical site were almost twice as likely to be core participants. Those who directly visited the SPARK website or performed a Google search were more likely to be core participants than those who joined through social media.

Discussion

Being a core participant may be associated with the "personal" connection and support provided by a clinical site and/or site staff, as well as greater motivation to seek research opportunities. Findings from this study underscore the value of adopting a multimodal recruitment approach that combines social media and a physical presence.

Returning personalized, genetic health test results to individuals of African descent or ancestry in precision medicine research

Today, many epidemiological studies and biobanks are offering to disclose individual genetic results to their participants, including the National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program. Returning hereditary disease risks and pharmacogenetic test results to study participants from racial/ethnic groups that are historically underrepresented in biomedical research poses specific challenges to those participants and the health system writ large. For example, individuals of African descent are underrepresented in research about drug-gene interactions and have a relatively higher proportion of variants of unknown significance, affecting their ability to take clinical action following return of results. In this brief report, we summarize studies published to date concerning the perspectives and/or attitudes of African Americans engaged in genetic research programs to anticipate factors in disclosure protocols that would minimize risks and maximize benefits. A thematic analysis of studies identified (n = 6) lends to themes centered on motivations to engage or disengage in the return of results and integrating research and care. Actionable strategies determined in reaction to these themes center on ensuring adequate system and health education support for participants and personalizing the process for participants engaging in return of results. Overall, we offer these themes and actionable strategies as early guidance to research programs, and provide recommendations to policy makers focused on fair and equitable return of genetic research results to underrepresented research participants.

Return of Individual Research Results: Participant Perspectives in a Longitudinal Community-Based Sample

The last decade has witnessed growing calls for the return of individual research results. Prior work in genetic studies has shown that individual, contextual, and cultural factors influence participants' preferences for individual research results. There is a gap in knowledge about participants' views about other types of results, specifically those lacking clinical significance. This study investigates the perspectives of 1587 mothers enrolled in the Northern Plains Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program. Participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios to determine their perceived value of individual research results based on result type and the ability to interpret them within a normative context. Irrespective of the result type, participants attributed higher perceived value to results that were well understood than results of unknown significance.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

Returning study results to research participants: Data access, format, and sharing preferences

INTRODUCTION

Research participants have a growing expectation for transparency with their collected information; however, there is little guidance on participant preferences for receiving health information and how researchers should return this information to participants.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 502 participants in the United States. Participants were asked about their preferences for receiving, sharing, and the formatting of health information collected for research purposes.

RESULTS

Most participants wanted their health information returned (84 %) to use it for their own knowledge and to manage their own health. Email was the most preferred format for receiving health data (67 %), followed by online website (44 %), and/or paper copy (32 %). Data format preferences varied by age, education, financial resources, subjective numeracy, and health literacy. Around one third of Generation Z (25 %), Millennials (30 %), and Generation X (29 %) participants preferred to receive their health information with a mobile app. In contrast, very few Baby Boomers (12 %) and none from the Silent Generation preferred the mobile app format. Having a paper copy of the data was preferred by 38 % of participants without a college degree compared to those with a college degree. Preferences were highest for sharing all health information with doctors and nurses (77 %), and some information with friends and family (66 %).

CONCLUSION

Study findings support returning research information to participants in multiple formats, including email, online websites, and paper copy. Preferences for whom to share information with varied by stakeholders and by sociodemographic characteristics. Researchers should offer multiple formats to participants and tailor data sharing options to participants' preferences. Future research should further explore combinations of individual characteristics that may further influence data sharing and format preferences.

Addressing underrepresentation in genomics research through community engagement

The vision of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is that people everywhere will realize the benefits of human genetics and genomics. Implicit in that vision is the importance of ensuring that the benefits of human genetics and genomics research are realized in ways that minimize harms and maximize benefits, a goal that can only be achieved through focused efforts to address health inequities and increase the representation of underrepresented communities in genetics and genomics research. This guidance is intended to advance community engagement as an approach that can be used across the research lifecycle. Community engagement uniquely offers researchers in human genetics and genomics an opportunity to pursue that vision successfully, including by addressing underrepresentation in genomics research.

Return of genomic results does not motivate intent to participate in research for all: Perspectives across 22 countries

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally.

METHODS

We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date.

RESULTS

There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.