Making sense of genetic risk: A qualitative focus-group study of healthy participants in genomic research

The Return of Biomarker Results in Research: Balancing Complexity, Precision, and Ethical Responsibility

Recent research aimed at the discovery, integration, and communication of health outcome measures (or "biomarkers") in Alzheimer's disease has raised challenging questions related to whether, how and when results from these investigations should be disclosed to research participants. Reflecting the apparent heterogeneity of many neurodegenerative diseases, biomarker or other risk factor results are often probabilistic, interactive, multi-modal, and selective. Such characteristics make it very complex to summarize and communicate to clinicians, researchers, and research participants. Whereas the format and content of academic literature is well-managed by the peer-review process, reporting individualized results to participants involves complex, sensitive, and ethical considerations. This paper describes three key factors to consider in decisions about the return of results to research participants: complexity, precision, and responsibility. The paper also presents six practical recommendations for implementing meaningful and ethical communication with research participants.

Parental understanding and attitudes following pharmacogenomic testing for pediatric neuropsychiatric patients

Aim: This study explores parental understanding and attitudes around pharmacogenomic results in their child(ren). Patients and methods: In-depth interviews with parents whose child(ren) had received a pharmacogenomic testing panel for management of neuropsychiatric medications were completed. Interviews were analyzed for themes and accuracy of understanding of results. Results: In 18 parents interviewed, 49/63 (78%) of statements made regarding results were accurate. Differences in understanding were seen by clinic, number of medications and result type. Parents expected results to guide prescribing and perceived the greatest utility in results that could impact current care. Results predicting normal drug metabolism may create mixed feelings. Conclusion: Parents perceive utility in pharmacogenomic testing for their children. Challenges exist in understanding probabilistic and multifactorial information about pharmacogenomic results.

Comprehension of skin cancer genetic risk feedback in primary care patients

Few studies have examined comprehension and miscomprehension of genetic risk feedback for moderate-risk genes in the general population. We examined the prevalence and nature of accurate and inaccurate genetic risk feedback comprehension among those who received genetic testing for melanocortin-1-receptor (MC1R) gene variants that confer moderate melanoma risk. Participants (N = 145 Albuquerque, NM) were tested as part of a randomized controlled trial. Two weeks after receiving MC1R genetic risk feedback, participants answered open-ended questions regarding their reactions to the MC1R feedback report. Participants' comprehension of their feedback (average-risk or higher-risk for melanoma) was evaluated through qualitative analysis of open-ended responses. Most participants demonstrated comprehension of their feedback results (i.e., 63% of average-risk participants [ARPs]; 51% of higher-risk participants [HRPs]). Miscomprehension was evident in fewer participants (i.e., 16% of ARPs, 11% of HRPs). A few ARPs misunderstood the purpose of testing, whereas a few HRPs reported confusion about the meaning of their risk feedback. Some participants' responses to the open-ended questions were too ambiguous to ascertain comprehension or miscomprehension (i.e., 21% of ARPs, 38% of HRPs). Taken together, these findings suggest that genetic testing feedback for MC1R risk variants is largely comprehensible to general population participants. This study adds to the work examining comprehension and usage of common, moderate risk genetic information in public health contexts. However, to maximize the utility of genetic risk information in the general population, further research is needed to investigate and address areas where common genetic risk feedback misunderstandings occur.

Ethical concerns relating to genetic risk scores for suicide

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) provide valuable information in research contexts regarding genomic changes that contribute to risks for complex psychiatric conditions like major depressive disorder. GWAS results can be used to calculate polygenic risk scores (PRS) for psychiatric conditions, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, as well as for other traits, such as obesity or hypertension. Private companies that provide direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing sometimes report PRS for a variety of traits. Recently, the first well-powered GWAS study for suicide death was published. PRS reports that claim to assess suicide risk are therefore likely to appear soon in the DTC setting. We describe ethical concerns regarding the commercial use of GWAS results related to suicide. We identify several issues that must be addressed before PRS for suicide risk is made available to the public through DTC: (a) the potential for misinterpretation of results, (b) consumers' perceptions about determinism and behavior change, (c) potential contributions to stigma, discrimination, and health disparities; and (d) ethical problems regarding the testing of children and vulnerable adults. Tests for genetic prediction of suicidality may eventually have clinical significance, but until then, the potential for individual and public harm significantly outweighs any potential benefit. Even if genetic prediction of suicidality improves significantly, information about genetic risk scores must be distributed cautiously, with genetic counseling, and with adequate safeguards.

The use of heuristics in genetic testing decision-making: A qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Decision-making concerning predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is inherently complex. This study aims to investigate what kind of complexities adults undergoing genetic counseling in Switzerland experience, how they deal with them, and what heuristics they use during the decision-making process.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews with eighteen Swiss adults seeking genetic counseling for hereditary cancer syndrome genetic testing and two counseling physicians were conducted and analyzed using a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Counselees stated that once they were aware of their eligibility for genetic testing they perceived an inevitable necessity to make a decision in a context of uncertainties. Some counselees perceived this decision as simple, others as very complex. High emotional involvement increased perceived complexity. We observed six heuristics that counselees used to facilitate their decision: Anticipating the test result; Focusing on consequences; Dealing with information; Interpreting disease risk; Using external guidance; and (Re-)Considering the general uncertainty of life.

LIMITATIONS

Our findings are limited to the context of predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. This qualitative study does not allow extrapolation of the relative frequency of which heuristics occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of heuristics is an inherent part of decision-making, particularly in the complex context of genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition. However, some heuristics increase the risk of misinterpretation or exaggerated external influences. This may negatively impact informed decision-making. Thus, this study illustrates the importance of genetic counselors and medical professionals being aware of these heuristics and the individual manner in which they might be applied in the context of genetic testing decision-making. Findings may offer practical support to achieve this, as they inductively focus on the counselees' perspective.

Lay understandings of drug-gene interactions: The right medication, the right dose, at the right time, but what are the right words?

As pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing increases in popularity, lay concepts of drug‐gene interactions set the stage for shared decision making in precision medicine. Few studies explore what recipients of PGx results think is happening in their bodies when a drug‐gene interaction is discovered. To characterize biobank participants’ understanding of PGx research results, we conducted a focus group study, which took place after PGx variants conferring increased risk of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency were disclosed to biobank contributors. DPD deficiency confers an increased risk of adverse reaction to commonly used cancer chemotherapeutics. Ten focus groups were conducted, ranging from two to eight participants. Fifty‐four individuals participated in focus groups. A framework approach was used for descriptive and explanatory analysis. Descriptive themes included participants’ efforts to make sense of PGx findings as they related to: (1) health implications, (2) drugs, and (3) genetics. Explanatory analysis supplied a functional framework of how participant word choices can perform different purposes in PGx communication. Results bear three main implications for PGx research‐related disclosure. First, participants’ use of various terms suggest participants generally understanding their PGx results, including how positive PGx results differ from positive disease susceptibility genetic results. Second, PGx disclosure in biobanking can involve participant conflation of drug‐gene interactions with allergies or other types of medical reactions. Third, the functional framework suggests a need to move beyond a deficit model of genetic literacy in PGx communication. Together, findings provide an initial evidence base for supporting bidirectional expert‐recipient PGx results communication.

Exploring research participants' perceptions of cardiovascular risk information-Room for improvement and empowerment

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore research participants' (adults, age 50-65) perceptions of receiving cardiovascular risk information.

METHODS

Five focus group interviews (N = 31) were performed with research participants aged 50-65 who participated in the Swedish CArdioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS). The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The categories; the complexity of cardiovascular risk; insufficient presentation of test result; emotional responses; and health examinations provides confirmation, emerged. The test results were written in medical terms and lacked recommendations for further action which made it difficult for lay people to understand and use, and for some, also caused unnecessary worry.

CONCLUSION

There was inadequate guidance concerning the implications of the test results, especially for participants without clinical findings. In order to allow research participants to obtain better cognitive and behavioral control, improvements are needed with regard to how personal risk information is communicated in research projects connected to health services.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The participants largely relied on physical signs when assessing their own cardiovascular risk. Health examinations are crucial for helping to add nuance to individuals' risk perceptions. For personal health information to have any real value for individuals, it must be designed from a user perspective.

How Uncertainty Influences Lay People's Attitudes and Risk Perceptions Concerning Predictive Genetic Testing and Risk Communication

The interpretation of genetic information in clinical settings raises moral issues about adequate risk communication and individual responsibility about one's health behavior. However, it is not well-known what role numeric probabilities and/or the conception of disease and genetics play in the lay understanding of predictive genetic diagnostics. This is an important question because lay understanding of genetic risk information might have particular implications for self-responsibility of the patients. Aim: Analysis of lay attitudes and risk perceptions of German lay people on genetic testing with a special focus on how they deal with the numerical information. Methods: We conducted and analyzed seven focus group discussions (FG) with lay people (n = 43). Results: Our participants showed a positive attitude toward predictive genetic testing. We identified four main topics: (1) Anumeric risk instead of statistical information; (2) Treatment options as a factor for risk evaluation; (3) Epistemic and aleatory uncertainty as moral criticism; (4) Ambivalence as a sign of uncertainty. Conclusion: For lay people, risk information, including the statistical numeric part, is perceived as highly normatively charged, often as an emotionally significant threat. It seems necessary to provide lay people with a deeper understanding of risk information and of the limitations of genetic knowledge with respect to one's own health responsibility.

Research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information: a discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information when participating in a scientific study that uses genome sequencing.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent to 650 research participants (response rate 60.5%). Four attributes were selected for the questionnaire: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunity, and effectiveness of the preventive measure. Panel mixed logit models were used to determine attribute level estimates and the heterogeneity in preferences. Relative importance of the attribute and the predicted uptake for different information scenarios were calculated from the estimates. In addition, this study estimates predicted uptake for receiving genetic risk information in different scenarios.

RESULTS

All characteristics influenced research participants' willingness to receive genetic risk information. The most important characteristic was the effectiveness of the preventive opportunity. Predicted uptake ranged between 28% and 98% depending on what preventive opportunities and levels of effectiveness were presented.

CONCLUSION

Information about an effective preventive measure was most important for participants. They valued that attribute twice as much as the other attributes. Therefore, when there is an effective preventive measure, risk communication can be less concerned with the magnitude of the probability of developing disease.