Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research

Should institutions fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research?

The article argues the thesis that institutions have a prima facie obligation to fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research conducted on the African continent by drawing arguments from an underexplored Afro-communitarian view of distributive justice and rights of researchers to be aided. Whilst some studies have explored how institutions have a duty to support return as a form of ancillary care or additional foreseeable service in research by mostly appealing to dominant principles and theories in the Global North, this mostly normative study explores this question by appealing to underexplored African philosophy. This is a new way of thinking about institutional responsibility to fund feedback and responds to the call to decolonise health research in Africa. Further studies are required to study how this prima facie obligation will interact with social contexts and an institution's extant relationships to find an actual duty. The research community should also work out procedures, policies and governance structures to facilitate feedback. In our opinion, though the impacts of feeding back can inform how institutions think about their actual duty, these do not obliterate the binding duty to fund feedback.

Artificial Intelligence Needs Data: Challenges Accessing Italian Databases to Train AI

Population biobanks are an increasingly important infrastructure to support research and will be a much-needed resource in the delivery of personalised medicine. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can process and cross-link very large amounts of data quickly and be used not only for improving research power but also for helping with complex diagnosis and prediction of diseases based on health profiles. AI, therefore, potentially has a critical role to play in personalised medicine, and biobanks can provide a lot of the necessary baseline data related to healthy populations that will enable the development of AI tools. To develop these tools, access to personal data, and in particular, sensitive data, is required. Such data could be accessed from biobanks. Biobanks are a valuable resource for research but accessing and using the data contained within such biobanks raise a host of legal, ethical, and social issues (ELSI). This includes the appropriate consent to manage the collection, storage, use, and sharing of samples and data, and appropriate governance models that provide oversight of secondary use of samples and data. Biobanks have developed new consent models and governance tools to enable access that address some of these ELSI-related issues. In this paper, we consider whether such governance frameworks can enable access to biobank data to develop AI. As Italy has one of the most restrictive regulatory frameworks on the use of genetic data in Europe, we examine the regulatory framework in Italy. We also look at the proposed changes under the European Health Data Space (EHDS). We conclude by arguing that currently, regulatory frameworks are misaligned and unless addressed, accessing data within Italian biobanks to train AI will be severely limited.

Research biobank participants attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and health record confidentiality

Understanding attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality is important in guiding policies regarding special protections for genetic/genomic information stored in electronic health records (EHR). The goals of this study were to determine biobank participants' attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality and whether those attitudes are related to their preference for return of genetic results. An online questionnaire was distributed to patients with an EHR and email address who had previously enrolled in the BioMe Biobank program. Most participants responded with similar levels of concern in scenarios involving the use of genetic information and other types of health information, suggesting that participants want similar protections for genetic data as other types of sensitive health information, particularly mental health and family history records. Of the 829 respondents, the majority had genetic exceptionalist views when directly asked, even though their concerns about confidentiality were similar for their genetic information and other health information. There were no differences in genetic exceptionalist views between those who had a documented preference to have genetic results returned and those who did not. Notably, for many participants, their recall of preference did not align with their documented preference. The majority of biobank participants were most anxious about the loss of confidentiality for genetic, mental health, and family history information, indicating that certain types of health information are considered more "sensitive" than others. These findings suggest the importance of assuring people participating in biobank research that the confidentiality of their "sensitive" health information is secured.

Parents and Provider Perspectives on the Return of Genomic Findings for Cleft Families in Africa

BACKGROUND

Inadequate knowledge among health care providers (HCPs) and parents of affected children limits the understanding and utility of secondary genetic findings (SFs) in under-represented populations in genomics research. SFs arise from deep DNA sequencing done for research or diagnostic purposes and may burden patients and their families despite their potential health importance. This study aims to evaluate the perspective of both groups regarding SFs and their choices in the return of results from genetic testing in the context of orofacial clefts.

METHODS

Using an online survey, we evaluated the experiences of 252 HCPs and 197 parents across participating cleft clinics in Ghana and Nigeria toward the return of SFs across several domains.

RESULTS

Only 1.6% of the HCPs felt they had an expert understanding of when and how to incorporate genomic medicine into practice, while 50.0% agreed that all SFs should be returned to patients. About 95.4% of parents were willing to receive all the information from genetic testing (including SFs), while the majority cited physicians as their primary information source (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, parents and providers were aware that genetic testing could help in the clinical management of diseases. However, they cited a lack of knowledge about genomic medicine, uncertain clinical utility, and lack of available learning resources as barriers. The knowledge gained from this study will assist with developing guidelines and policies to guide providers on the return of SFs in sub-Saharan Africa and across the continent.

Lived experiences of genetic diagnosis for rare disease patients: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Genetic diagnosis is often understood as a single event within the care pathway of rare disease patients. Legal, policy and ethical scholarship focusing on rare diseases and genetic information discusses questions of how to best deal with the process of genetic diagnosis and the communication of genetic information within a given health system. We co-created a research design with rare disease patients and their families in Austria to explore in-depth the experiences of genetic diagnosis for people affected by rare diseases. Our objective was to trace the whole pathway of genetic testing and understand how rare disease patients experience genetic diagnosis as part of their care pathway in the healthcare system.

RESULTS

Data was collected through in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews with 14 patients with a suspected or diagnosed rare disease or their parents, focusing on their perception of the pathway of genetic diagnosis in Austria. This pathway included the initial triggering of genetic diagnosis, the process of testing and its immediate (communication of results, counselling) and long-term, wider aftermath. Patients missed a clear link to already established forms of care such as their primary care/treating physicians. They also advocate for an integrated and interdisciplinary care pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underscores the importance of a continuous care and communication pathway spanning from the initial genetic diagnosis process to post-test phases. It further shows the importance of exploring patients' perspectives through qualitative research methods to understand the intricate workings of public health policies and tools. Integrating genetic diagnosis into a broader care trajectory is crucial for a holistic approach to care for rare disease patients who often rely on regular interactions with the healthcare system. Achieving this holistic approach requires collaboration between experts in specific rare disease areas, primary care physicians, and support networks.

Systematic review of the uptake and outcomes from returning secondary findings to adult participants in research genomic testing

The increasing use of genomic sequencing in research means secondary findings (SF) is more frequently detected and becoming a more pressing issue for researchers. This is reflected by the recent publication of multiple guidelines on this issue, calling for researchers to have a plan for managing SF prior to commencing their research. A deeper understanding of participants' experiences and outcomes from receiving SF is needed to ensure that the return of SF is conducted ethically and with adequate support. This review focuses on the uptake and outcomes of receiving actionable SF for research participants. This review included studies from January 2010 to January 2023. Databases searched included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Of the 3903 studies identified, 29 were included in the analysis. The uptake of SF ranged between 20% and 97%, and outcomes were categorized into psychological, clinical, lifestyle and behavioral, and family outcomes. The results indicate there is minimal psychological impact from receiving SF. Almost all participants greatly valued receiving SF. These findings highlight considerations for researchers when returning results, including the importance of involving genetic health professionals in consenting, results return process, and ensuring continuity of care by engaging healthcare providers.

Public and Patients' Perspectives Towards Data and Sample Sharing for Research: An Overview of Empirical Findings

We aimed to review the attitudes and perspectives of the public and patients towards the sharing of data and biospecimens for research and to identify common dimensions, regardless of setting. Our review included systematic, scoping or thematic reviews of empirical studies retrieved from Medline (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Reviews. The main themes identified and synthesised across the 14 reviews were readiness and motivations; potential risks and safeguards; trust, transparency and accountability; autonomy and preferred type of consent; and factors influencing data and biospecimen sharing and consent. Sociodemographic factors and research and individual context remain relevant influencing factors in all settings, while preferences for types of consent are highly heterogeneous. Trusted environments and adapted consent options with participant engagement are relevant to improve research participation.

The attitude and behaviors of the different spheres of the community of the United Arab Emirates toward the clinical utility and bioethics of secondary genetic findings: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Genome sequencing has utility, however, it may reveal secondary findings. While Western bioethicists have been occupied with managing secondary findings, specialists' attention in the Arabic countries has not yet been captured. We aim to explore the attitude of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) population toward secondary findings.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study between July and December 2022. The validated questionnaire was administered in English. The questionnaire consists of six sections addressing topics such as demographics, reactions to hypothetical genetic test results, disclosure of mutations to family members, willingness to seek genetic testing, and attitudes toward consanguinity. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to investigate associations between categorical variables.

RESULTS

We had 343 participants of which the majority were female (67%). About four-fifths (82%) were willing to know the secondary findings, whether the condition has treatment or not. The most likely action to take among the participants was to know the secondary findings, so they can make life choices (61%).

CONCLUSION

These results can construct the framework of the bioethics of disclosing secondary findings in the Arab regions.

GBA/GBN-position on the feedback of incidental findings in biobank-based research: consensus-based workflow for hospital-based biobanks

Incidental research findings pose a considerable challenge to hospital-based research biobanks since they are acting as intermediaries between healthcare and research. In a joint action the centralized biobank ibdw (Interdisciplinary Bank of Biomaterials and Data Wuerzburg) together with local authorities drafted a coherent concept to manage incidental research findings in full compliance with relevant ethical and data privacy regulations. The concept was developed and elaborated in close collaboration with the German Biobank Alliance (GBA). Comprehensive documentation of all steps guarantees the traceability of the process. By a mandatory assessment of the findings prior to re-identification of the individual concerned, unnecessary measures can be avoided. The individual's "right not to know" is respected according to the stipulations of the informed consent. As a general principle any communication with the individual occurs exclusively through the hospital and by competent physicians with appropriate knowledge and communication skills. We propose this scheme as a blueprint for reporting workflows for incidental research findings at hospital-based biobanks.

Primary care providers' preferences for the communication and management of actionable genomic findings from a research biobank

Purpose

Little is known about non-genetics health care specialists' attitudes toward the return and utilization of actionable genomic results from a research biobank. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) to explore their perspectives on these results and their preferences for return.

Methods

We administered a paper and web-based 27-question survey to PCPs residing locally and caring for adult patients. Recruitment was conducted in person and by email, focusing on PCPs likely to interact with results generated by our institution's biobank.

Results

Of the ~482 PCPs contacted, 77 (16%) returned surveys. Although most respondents (90%) prefer that a genetics specialist be involved in communicating biobank-generated genomic results to patients, about 40% of respondents reported that a PCP shares the responsibility to discuss these results along with other specialists. A majority of respondents (74%) felt uncomfortable communicating these results to patients. However, respondents reported significantly greater comfort with this process when offered targeted educational resources (62% with vs 10% without resources; P < 10-5).

Conclusion

PCPs recognize the need to engage with their patients' biobank-generated genomic results but feel uncomfortable in doing so. Relevant resources are needed to improve PCPs' confidence in the use of these types of results to affect patient care.

Parents' Perspectives on Secondary Genetic Ancestry Findings in Pediatric Genomic Medicine

PURPOSE

With advances in genome sequencing technologies, large-scale genome-wide sequencing has advanced our understanding of disease risk and etiology and contributes to the rapidly expanding genomic health services in pediatric settings. Because it is possible to return ancestry estimates following clinical genomic sequencing, it is important to understand the interest in ancestry results among families who may have the option of receiving these results.

METHODS

We conducted 26 semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews of parents with children/newborns with likely genetic conditions from two studies of clinical genome sequencing. Using a purposive sampling approach, we selected parents from the SouthSeq cohort, Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER Phase 2) project active in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, or an earlier Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER Phase 1) initiative based in the same region. Our interviews focused on parental knowledge about, attitudes on, interest in, and preferences for receiving genetic ancestry results following clinical genome sequencing in the neonatal intensive care unit or in pediatric clinics.

FINDINGS

Overall, parents prioritized clinical results or results that would help guide the diagnosis and treatment of their child, but they were also interested in any genetic result, including genetic ancestry, that potentially could enhance the meaning of information on disease risk, prevention and screening guidance, or family planning. While parents thought that ancestry results would help them learn about themselves and their heritage, the had concerns over the privacy, security, and accuracy of genetic ancestry information, although parents indicated that they had greater trust in ancestry findings provided as part of clinical care compared with those offered commercially. Parents also wanted ancestry results to be returned in a timely manner by knowledgeable staff, with kid-friendly materials and online tools available to aid, as needed, in the understanding of their results.

IMPLICATIONS

Taken together, our results highlight that despite being in high-stress situations, such as having a newborn in the neonatal intensive care unit, parents were interested in receiving genetic ancestry results along with their clinically relevant findings.

Feeding back of individual genetic results in Botswana: mapping opportunities and challenges

PURPOSE

We explored the views of Botswana stakeholders involved in developing, implementing and applying ethical standards for return of individual study results from genomic research. This allowed for mapping opportunities and challenges regarding actionability requirements that determine whether individual genomic research results should be fed back.

METHODS

Using in-depth interviews, this study explored the views of sixteen (16) stakeholders about the extent, nature and timing of feedback of individual genomic research findings, including incidental findings that arise in the context of African genomics research. Coded data was analyzed through an iterative process of analytic induction to document and interpret themes.

RESULTS

Overall, respondents were of the view that feedback of actionable individual genomic results was an important outcome that could benefit participants. However, a number of themes surfaced that pointed to opportunities and challenges that exist in Botswana that could help in planning for feeding back of individual genomic results that were mapped. Some of the opportunities cited by the respondents included the existence of good governance; democracy and humanitarianism; universal healthcare system; national commitment to science; research and innovation to transform Botswana into a knowledge-based economy; and applicable standard of care which could promote actionability. On the other hand, contextual issues like the requirement for validation of genomic research results in accredited laboratories, high cost of validation of genomic results, and linkage to care, as well as lack of experts like genomic scientists and counselors were considered as challenges for return of individual results.

CONCLUSION

We propose that decisions whether and which genomic results to return take into consideration contextual opportunities and challenges for actionability for return of results in a research setting. This is likely to avoid or minimize ethical issues of justice, equity and harm regarding actionability decisions.

A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context

An increasing number of European research projects return, or plan to return, individual genomic research results (IRR) to participants. While data access is a data subject's right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many legal and ethical guidelines allow or require participants to receive personal data generated in research, the practice of returning results is not straightforward and raises several practical and ethical issues. Existing guidelines focusing on return of IRR are mostly project-specific, only discuss which results to return, or were developed outside Europe. To address this gap, we analysed existing normative documents identified online using inductive content analysis. We used this analysis to develop a checklist of steps to assist European researchers considering whether to return IRR to participants. We then sought feedback on the checklist from an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (clinicians, clinical researchers, population-based researchers, biobank managers, ethicists, lawyers and policy makers) to refine the checklist. The checklist outlines seven major components researchers should consider when determining whether, and how, to return results to adult research participants: 1) Decide which results to return; 2) Develop a plan for return of results; 3) Obtain participant informed consent; 4) Collect and analyse data; 5) Confirm results; 6) Disclose research results; 7) Follow-up and monitor. Our checklist provides a clear outline of the steps European researchers can follow to develop ethical and sustainable result return pathways within their own research projects. Further legal analysis is required to ensure this checklist complies with relevant domestic laws.

Genomic Diagnosis of Rare Pediatric Disease in the United Kingdom and Ireland

BACKGROUND

Pediatric disorders include a range of highly penetrant, genetically heterogeneous conditions amenable to genomewide diagnostic approaches. Finding a molecular diagnosis is challenging but can have profound lifelong benefits.

METHODS

We conducted a large-scale sequencing study involving more than 13,500 families with probands with severe, probably monogenic, difficult-to-diagnose developmental disorders from 24 regional genetics services in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Standardized phenotypic data were collected, and exome sequencing and microarray analyses were performed to investigate novel genetic causes. We developed an iterative variant analysis pipeline and reported candidate variants to clinical teams for validation and diagnostic interpretation to inform communication with families. Multiple regression analyses were performed to evaluate factors affecting the probability of diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 13,449 probands were included in the analyses. On average, we reported 1.0 candidate variant per parent-offspring trio and 2.5 variants per singleton proband. Using clinical and computational approaches to variant classification, we made a diagnosis in approximately 41% of probands (5502 of 13,449). Of 3599 probands in trios who received a diagnosis by clinical assertion, approximately 76% had a pathogenic de novo variant. Another 22% of probands (2997 of 13,449) had variants of uncertain significance in genes that were strongly linked to monogenic developmental disorders. Recruitment in a parent-offspring trio had the largest effect on the probability of diagnosis (odds ratio, 4.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16 to 5.31). Probands were less likely to receive a diagnosis if they were born extremely prematurely (i.e., 22 to 27 weeks' gestation; odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.68), had in utero exposure to antiepileptic medications (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.67), had mothers with diabetes (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.67), or were of African ancestry (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Among probands with severe, probably monogenic, difficult-to-diagnose developmental disorders, multimodal analysis of genomewide data had good diagnostic power, even after previous attempts at diagnosis. (Funded by the Health Innovation Challenge Fund and Wellcome Sanger Institute.).

Personal Genomes in Practice: Exploring Citizen and Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on Personalized Genomic Medicine and Personal Health Data Spaces Using a Mixed-Methods Design

Ongoing health challenges, such as the increased global burden of chronic disease, are increasingly answered by calls for personalized approaches to healthcare. Genomic medicine, a vital component of these personalization strategies, is applied in risk assessment, prevention, prognostication, and therapeutic targeting. However, several practical, ethical, and technological challenges remain. Across Europe, Personal Health Data Space (PHDS) projects are under development aiming to establish patient-centered, interoperable data ecosystems balancing data access, control, and use for individual citizens to complement the research and commercial focus of the European Health Data Space provisions. The current study explores healthcare users’ and health care professionals’ perspectives on personalized genomic medicine and PHDS solutions, in casu the Personal Genetic Locker (PGL). A mixed-methods design was used, including surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Several meta-themes were generated from the data: (i) participants were interested in genomic information; (ii) participants valued data control, robust infrastructure, and sharing data with non-commercial stakeholders; (iii) autonomy was a central concern for all participants; (iv) institutional and interpersonal trust were highly significant for genomic medicine; and (v) participants encouraged the implementation of PHDSs since PHDSs were thought to promote the use of genomic data and enhance patients’ control over their data. To conclude, we formulated several facilitators to implement genomic medicine in healthcare based on the perspectives of a diverse set of stakeholders.

Do genomic passports leave us more vulnerable or less vulnerable? Perspectives from an online citizen engagement

Since genomics is becoming commonplace in healthcare for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, the prospect of generating a genomic passport for all citizens is gaining traction. While this would have many advantages, it raises ethical issues requiring societal debate alongside academic reflection. Hence, Sciensano-the Belgian scientific Institute of Public Health-organised an online citizen engagement on genomic information usage, including a question on a genomic passport for all. The inductive thematic analysis of participants' contributions highlighted vulnerability as a fundamental concern, while this has not received sufficient attention so far in genomics. Participants expressed their vulnerability in two ways. First, the genomic passport would inform them about their ontological vulnerability. By revealing their constitutional weaknesses (predisposition to diseases), it reminds them that everyone is unavoidably and perennially at risk of being harmed. Second, the misuse of the genomic passport can add situational vulnerabilities (e.g., discrimination causing psychological and economic harm). Moreover, the fundamental uncertainty in genomics-how will such sensitive information be used, and how will the science evolve?-exacerbates these vulnerabilities. This article ends with recommendations to alleviate these vulnerabilities in genomics now and in the future in which the genomic passport may become a reality.

Feedback of individual genetic and genomics research results: A qualitative study involving grassroots communities in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Genetics and genomics research (GGR) is associated with several challenges including, but not limited to, methods and implications of sharing research findings with participants and their family members, issues of confidentiality, and ownership of data obtained from samples. Additionally, GGR holds significant potential risk for social and psychological harms. Considerable research has been conducted globally, and has advanced the debate on return of genetic and genomics testing results. However, such investigations are limited in the African setting, including Uganda where research ethics guidance on return of results is deficient or suboptimal at best. The objective of this study was to assess perceptions of grassroots communities on if and how feedback of individual genetics and genomics testing results should occur in Uganda with a view to improving ethics guidance.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Five deliberative focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 42 participants from grassroots communities representing three major ethnic groupings. These were rural settings and the majority of participants were subsistence farmers with limited or no exposure to GGR. Data were analysed through thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches applied to interrogate predetermined themes and to identify any emerging themes. NVivo software (QSR international 2020) was used to support data analysis and illustrative quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

All the respondents were willing to participate in GGR and receive feedback of results conditional upon a health benefit. The main motivation was diagnostic and therapeutic benefits as well as facilitating future health planning. Thematic analysis identified four themes and several sub-themes including 1) the need-to-know health status 2) paternity information as a benefit and risk; 3) ethical considerations for feedback of findings and 4) extending feedback of genetics findings to family and community.

CONCLUSION

Participation in hypothetical GGR as well as feedback of results is acceptable to individuals in grassroots communities. However, the strong therapeutic and/or diagnostic misconception linked to GGR is concerning given that hopes for therapeutic and/or diagnostic benefit are unfounded. Viewing GGR as an opportunity to confirm or dispute paternity was another interesting perception. These findings carry profound implications for consent processes, genetic counselling and research ethics guidance. Privacy and confidentiality, benefits, risks as well as implications for sharing need to be considered for such feedback of results to be conducted appropriately.

Parents' experiences with large-scale sequencing for genetic predisposition in pediatric renal cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

In pediatric oncology, large-scale genetic sequencing contributes to the identification of cancer predisposition, which can facilitate surveillance and family counseling. Our qualitative study explores families' motives, knowledge, and views regarding germline genetic sequencing to improve future counseling and support.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of children with renal tumors participating in a national center, germline sequencing study. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used. Twenty nine parents participated, 17 mothers and 12 fathers. The median age of the affected children was 4 years.

RESULTS

Parents were generally positive about sequencing and reported a combination of individual and altruistic motives to participate. Some families counseled about sequencing shortly after cancer diagnosis felt overwhelmed. Many parents had difficulties distinguishing between panel and exome-wide analysis. Families in which no predisposition was identified felt reassured. Most families did not experience distress after a predisposition was disclosed, although sometimes stress following disclosure of a predisposition added to pre-existing (cancer-related) stress.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though families reported positive experiences with germline genetic sequencing to detect cancer predisposition, timing of consent for sequencing as well as parents' understanding of genetic concepts can be further improved.

Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape

Biobanks play a central role in pediatric translational research, which deals primarily with genetic data from sample-based research. However, participation of children in biobanking has received only limited attention in the literature, even though research in general and in clinical trials in particular have a long history in involving minors. So, we resolved to explore specific challenging ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI) in the current pediatric biobanking landscape to propose a way forward for biobanking with children as partners in research. Methodologically, we first established the accessibility and utilization of pediatric biobanks, mainly in Europe. This was supported by a literature review related to children's participation, taking into account not only academic papers but also relevant guidelines and best-practices. Our findings are discussed under five themes: general vulnerability; ethical issues-balancing risks and benefits, right to an open future, return of results including secondary findings; legal issues-capacity and legal majority; societal issues-public awareness and empowerment; and responsible research with children. Ultimately, we observed an on-going shift from the parents'/guardians' consent being a sine-qua-non condition to the positive minor's agreement: confirming that the minor is the participant, not the parent(s)/guardian(s). This ethical rethinking is paving the way toward age-appropriate, dynamic and participatory models of involving minors in decision-making. However, we identified a requirement for dynamic tools to assess maturity, a lack of co-produced engagement tools and paucity of shared best practices. We highlight the need to provide empowerment and capability settings to support researchers and biobankers, and back this with practical examples. In conclusion, equipping children and adults with appropriate tools, and ensuring children's participation is at the forefront of responsible pediatric biobanking, is an ethical obligation, and a cornerstone for research integrity.

Perspectives and experiences of researchers regarding feedback of incidental genomic research findings: A qualitative study

Background

There is a plethora of unanswered ethical questions about sharing incidental findings in genetics and genomics research. Yet understanding and addressing such issues is necessary for communicating incidental findings with participants. We explored researchers’ perspectives and experiences regarding feedback of incidental genomics findings to participants.

Methods

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interview schedules for In-depth interviews. Thirty respondents were purposively selected based on role as genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda. Data were analysed through content analysis to identify emerging themes using a comprehensive thematic matrix. QSR International NVivo software was used to support data analysis.

Results

a). On perceptions, sharing of incidental findings was acceptable and four themes emerged including role of professional judgement; role of ethics committees and ethical guidelines; optimal disclosure practices; limits to professional duty and uncertainty and; b). on practices, sharing had been carried out by some researchers and a theme on experience and practices emerged.

Conclusion

Feedback of incidental genomics research findings to participants is generally acceptable to researchers. Some researchers. Challenges include lack of ethical guidelines and uncertainty about the findings.

Factor's that impact on women's decision-making around prenatal genomic tests: An international discrete choice survey

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a survey-based discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to understand the test features that drive women's preferences for prenatal genomic testing, and explore variation across countries.

METHODS

Five test attributes were identified as being important for decision-making through a literature review, qualitative interviews and quantitative scoring exercise. Twelve scenarios were constructed in which respondents choose between two invasive tests or no test. Women from eight countries who delivered a baby in the previous 24 months completed a DCE presenting these scenarios. Choices were modeled using conditional logit regression analysis.

RESULTS

Surveys from 1239 women (Australia: n = 178; China: n = 179; Denmark: n = 88; Netherlands: n = 177; Singapore: n = 90; Sweden: n = 178; UK: n = 174; USA: n = 175) were analyzed. The key attribute affecting preferences was a test with the highest diagnostic yield (p < 0.01). Women preferred tests with short turnaround times (p < 0.01), and tests reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS; p < 0.01) and secondary findings (SFs; p < 0.01). Several country-specific differences were identified, including time to get a result, who explains the result, and the return of VUS and SFs.

CONCLUSION

Most women want maximum information from prenatal genomic tests, but our findings highlight country-based differences. Global consensus on how to return uncertain results is not necessarily realistic or desirable.

Exploring the motivations of research participants who chose not to learn medically actionable secondary genetic findings about themselves

PURPOSE

Proposals to return medically actionable secondary genetic findings (SFs) in the clinical and research settings have generated controversy regarding whether to solicit individuals' preferences about their "right not to know" genetic information. This study contributes to the debate by surveying research participants who have actively decided whether to accept or refuse SFs.

METHODS

Participants were drawn from a large National Institutes of Health (NIH) environmental health study. Participants who had accepted SFs (n = 148) or refused SFs (n = 83) were given more detailed information about the types of SFs researchers could return and were given an opportunity to revise their original decision.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 83 initial refusers (49.4%) opted to receive SFs following the informational intervention. Nearly 75% of these "reversible refusers" thought they had originally accepted SFs. The 50.6% of initial refusers who continued to refuse ("persistent refusers") demonstrated high levels of understanding of which SFs would be returned postintervention. The most prominent reason for refusing was concern about becoming worried or sad (43.8%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the need for a more robust informed consent process when soliciting research participants' preferences about receiving SFs. We also suggest that our data support implementing a default practice of returning SFs without actively soliciting preferences.

Perspectives and ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results: a qualitative study of genomics researchers in Uganda

BACKGROUND

The return of genetics and genomics research results has been a subject of ongoing global debate. Such feedback is ethically desirable to update participants on research findings particularly those deemed clinically significant. Although there is limited literature, debate continues in African on what constitutes appropriate practice regarding the return of results for genetics and genomics research. This study explored perspectives and ethical considerations of Ugandan genomics researchers regarding the return of genetics and genomics research results.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study that employed in-depth interviews. Thirty participants were purposively selected based on their expertise as genomics researchers in Uganda. Data were analysed through content analysis along the main themes of the study using a comprehensive thematic matrix, to identify common patterns arising from the narratives. NVivo software 12 was used to support data analysis.

RESULTS

The return of genetics and genomics research results was generally acceptable to researchers, and some indicated that they had previously returned individual or aggregate results to participants and communities. The main reasons cited for sharing research results with participants included their clinical utility, actionability and overall benefit to society. Ethical considerations for appropriate return of results included a need for effective community engagement, genetic counselling prior to disclosure of the results, adequate informed consent, and proper assessment of the implications of, or consequences of returning of results. However, the approaches to return of results were perceived as unstandardized due to the lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks.

CONCLUSIONS

The return of genetic and genomic research results is generally acceptable to researchers despite the lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks. Ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results are highly divergent, hence the need for national ethical guidelines to appropriately regulate the practice.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants

Legal, financial and organizational challenges and the absence of coherent international guidelines and legal frameworks still discourage many genetic studies to share individual research results with their participants. Studies and institutions deciding to return genetic results will need to design their own study-specific return policy after due consideration of the ethical responsibilities. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, a healthy cohort study, did not foresee the return of individual genomic results during its baseline phase. However, as it was expected that the follow-up phase would generate an increasing amount of reliable genetic results, an update of the return of research results (RoRR) policy became necessary. To inform this revision, an empirical study using mixed methods was developed to investigate the views of CHRIS research participants (20), local general practitioners (3) and the local genetic counselling service (1). During the interviews, three different examples of potential genetic results with a very diverse potential impact on participants were presented: breast cancer, Parkinson disease and Huntington disease. The CHRIS participants also completed a short questionnaire, collecting personal information and asking for a self-evaluation of their knowledge about genetics. This study made it clear that research participants want to make autonomous decisions on the disclosure or non-disclosure of their results. While the motivations for participants' decisions were very diverse, we were able to identify several common criteria that had a strong influence on their choices. Providing information on these factors is crucial to enable participants to make truly informed decisions.

Implementation of serological and molecular tools to inform COVID-19 patient management: protocol for the GENCOV prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

There is considerable variability in symptoms and severity of COVID-19 among patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Linking host and virus genome sequence information to antibody response and biological information may identify patient or viral characteristics associated with poor and favourable outcomes. This study aims to (1) identify characteristics of the antibody response that result in maintained immune response and better outcomes, (2) determine the impact of genetic differences on infection severity and immune response, (3) determine the impact of viral lineage on antibody response and patient outcomes and (4) evaluate patient-reported outcomes of receiving host genome, antibody and viral lineage results.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective, observational cohort study is being conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 in the Greater Toronto Area. Blood samples are collected at baseline (during infection) and 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis. Serial antibody titres, isotype, antigen target and viral neutralisation will be assessed. Clinical data will be collected from chart reviews and patient surveys. Host genomes and T-cell and B-cell receptors will be sequenced. Viral genomes will be sequenced to identify viral lineage. Regression models will be used to test associations between antibody response, physiological response, genetic markers and patient outcomes. Pathogenic genomic variants related to disease severity, or negative outcomes will be identified and genome wide association will be conducted. Immune repertoire diversity during infection will be correlated with severity of COVID-19 symptoms and human leucocyte antigen-type associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants can learn their genome sequencing, antibody and viral sequencing results; patient-reported outcomes of receiving this information will be assessed through surveys and qualitative interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Ethics Review System (CTO Project ID: 3302) and the research ethics boards at participating hospitals. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and end-users.

Return of individual research results: What do participants prefer and expect?

Newer data platforms offer increased opportunity to share multidimensional health data with research participants, but the preferences of participants for which data to receive and how is evolving. Our objective is to describe the preferences and expectations of participants for the return of individual research results within Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). The PBHS is an ongoing, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study with data from four initial enrollment sites. PBHS participants are recruited from the general population along with groups enriched for heart disease and cancer disease risk. Cross-sectional data on return of results were collected in 2017-2018 from an (1) in-person enrollment survey (n = 1,890), (2) benchmark online survey (n = 1,059), and (3) participant interviews (n = 21). The main outcomes included (1) preferences for type of information to be added next to returned results, (2) participant plans for sharing returned results with a non-study clinician, and (3) choice to opt-out of receiving genetic results. Results were compared by sociodemographic characteristics. Enrollment and benchmark survey respondents were 57.1% and 53.5% female, and 60.0% and 66.2% white, respectively. Participants preferred the following data types be added to returned results in the future: genetics (29.9%), heart imaging, (16.4%), study watch (15.8%), and microbiome (13.3%). Older adults (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41-0.87) were less likely to want their genetic results returned next. Forty percent of participants reported that they would not share all returned results with their non-study clinicians. Black (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95) and Asian (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73) participants were less likely, and older participants more likely (OR 1.45-1.61), to plan to share all results with their clinician than their counterparts. At enrollment, 5.8% of participants opted out of receiving their genetics results. The study showed that substantial heterogeneity existed in participant's preferences and expectations for return of results, and variations were related to sociodemographic characteristics.

To disclose, or not to disclose? Perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research

Background

Clinical genomic professionals are increasingly facing decisions about returning incidental findings (IFs) from genetic research. Although previous studies have shown that research participants are interested in receiving IFs, yet there has been an argument about the extent of researcher obligation to return IFs. We aimed in this study to explore the perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research.

Methods

We conducted a national survey of a sample (n = 113) of clinical genomic professionals using a convenient sampling. A self-administered questionnaire was used to explore their attitudes toward disclosure of IFs, their perception of the duties to return IFs and identifying the barriers for disclosure of IFs. A descriptive analysis was employed to describe participants' responses.

Results

Sixty-five (57.5%) respondents had faced IFs in their practice and 31 (27.4%) were not comfortable in discussing IFs with their research subjects. Less than one-third of the respondents reported the availability of guidelines governing IFs. The majority 84 (80%) and 69 (62.7%) of the study participants indicated they would return the IFs if the risk of disease threat ≥ 50% and 6–49%, respectively and 36 (31.9%) reported they have no obligation to return IFs.

Conclusion

Clinical genomics professionals have positive attitudes and perceptions toward the returning IFs from genomic research, yet some revealed no duty to do so. Detailed guidelines must be established to provide insights into how genomics professionals should be handled IFs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00670-y.

The return of individual genomic results to research participants: design and pilot study of Tohoku Medical Megabank Project

Certain large genome cohort studies attempt to return the individual genomic results to the participants; however, the implementation process and psychosocial impacts remain largely unknown. The Tohoku Medical Megabank Project has conducted large genome cohort studies of general residents. To implement the disclosure of individual genomic results, we extracted the potential challenges and obstacles. Major challenges include the determination of genes/disorders based on the current medical system in Japan, the storage of results, prevention of misunderstanding, and collaboration of medical professionals. To overcome these challenges, we plan to conduct multilayer pilot studies, which deal with different disorders/genes. We finally chose familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as a target disease for the first pilot study. Of the 665 eligible candidates, 33.5% were interested in the pilot study and provided consent after an educational "genetics workshop" on the basic genetics and medical facts of FH. The genetics professionals disclosed the results to the participants. All positive participants were referred to medical care, and a serial questionnaire revealed no significant psychosocial distress after the disclosure. Return of genomic results to research participants was implemented using a well-prepared protocol. To further elucidate the impact of different disorders, we will perform multilayer pilot studies with different disorders, including actionable pharmacogenomics and hereditary tumor syndromes.

Preferences to receive unsolicited findings of germline genome sequencing in a large population of patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

In precision medicine, somatic and germline DNA sequencing are essential to make genome-guided treatment decisions in patients with cancer. However, it can also uncover unsolicited findings (UFs) in germline DNA that could have a substantial impact on the lives of patients and their relatives. It is therefore critical to understand the preferences of patients with cancer concerning UFs derived from whole-exome (WES) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS).

METHODS

In a quantitative multicentre study, adult patients with cancer (any stage and origin of disease) were surveyed through a digital questionnaire based on previous semi-structured interviews. Background knowledge was provided by showing two videos, introducing basic concepts of genetics and general information about different categories of UFs (actionable, non-actionable, reproductive significance, unknown significance).

RESULTS

In total 1072 patients were included of whom 701 participants completed the whole questionnaire. Overall, 686 (85.1%) participants wanted to be informed about UFs in general. After introduction of four UFs categories, 113 participants (14.8%) changed their answer: 718 (94.2%) participants opted for actionable variants, 537 (72.4%) for non-actionable variants, 635 (87.0%) participants for UFs of reproductive significance and 521 (71.8%) for UFs of unknown significance. Men were more interested in receiving certain UFs than women: non-actionable: OR 3.32; 95% CI 2.05 to 5.37, reproductive significance: OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.67 and unknown significance: OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.21. In total, 244 (33%) participants conceded family members to have access to their UFs while still alive. 603 (82%) participants agreed to information being shared with relatives, after they would pass away.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the vast majority of patients with cancer desires to receive all UFs of genome testing, although a substantial minority does not wish to receive non-actionable findings. Incorporation of categories in informed consent procedures supports patients in making informed decisions on UFs.

Preferences for and acceptability of receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail: A focus group study with a primarily African-American cohort

Although genetic counseling is traditionally done through in-person, one-on-one visits, workforce shortages call for efficient result return mechanisms. Studies have shown that telephone and in-person return of cancer genetic results are equivalent for patient outcomes. Few studies have been conducted with other modes, result types or racially diverse participants. This study explored participants' perspectives on receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail. Two experienced moderators facilitated six focus groups with 49 individuals who self-identified primarily as African-American and consented to participate in a genome sequencing cohort study. Participants were given a hypothetical pharmacogenomic result report (positive for c.521T>C in SLCO1B1). An accompanying letter explained that the result was associated with statin intolerance along with a recommendation to share it with one's doctor and immediate relatives. Participants reacted to the idea of receiving this type of result by mail, discussing whether the letter's information was sufficient and what they predicted they would do with the result. Two researchers coded the focus group transcripts and identified themes. Many participants thought that it was appropriate to receive the result through the mail, but some suggested a phone call alerting the recipient to the letter. Others emphasized that although a letter was acceptable for disclosing pharmacogenomic results, it would be insufficient for what they perceived as life-threatening results. Most participants found the content sufficient. Some participants suggested resources about statin intolerance and warning signs be added. Most claimed they would share the result with their doctor, yet few participants offered they would share the result with their relatives. This exploratory study advances the evidence that African-American research participants are receptive to return of certain genetic results by approaches that do not involve direct contact with a genetic counselor and intend to share results with providers. ClinSeq: A Large-Scale Medical Sequencing Clinical Research Pilot Study (NCT00410241).

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

Attitudes of healthy volunteers to genetic testing in phase 1 clinical trials

Background: Genetic testing in clinical trials introduces several ethical and logistical issues to discuss with potential participants when taking informed consent. The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes of healthy volunteers in phase 1 studies to the topics of genetic security, genetic privacy and incidental genetic findings.

Methods: Healthy volunteers presenting for screening appointments at a phase 1 clinical trial unit (CMAX Clinical Research, Adelaide, Australia) took an anonymous paper survey about genetic testing.

Results: There were 275 respondents to the survey. The mean age was 27 years (range 18-73); 54% were male and 53% were of North/Western European ethnicity. Just over half the healthy volunteers thought genetic security (56%) and genetic privacy (57%) were “important” or “very important”. However, the security of their genetic information was ranked less important than other personal information, including mobile phone number, internet browser search history and email address. Two-thirds of respondents would trade genetic privacy for re-identifiability if information relevant to their health were discovered by genetic testing. Healthy volunteers favoured the return of incidental genetic findings (90% indicated this was “important” or “very important”). A level of risk (10 to 90%) for developing a serious medical condition that would “trigger” the return of incidental genetic findings to participants was not identified.

Conclusions: Healthy volunteers screening for phase 1 clinical trials have mixed views about the importance of genetic security and genetic privacy, but they strongly favour the return of incidental genetic findings that could affect their health. These issues should be discussed with potential participants during informed consent for phase 1 clinical trials with genetic testing.

Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study

Genetic results are usually not returned to research participants in Uganda despite their increased demand. We report on researchers' perceptions and experiences of return of individual genetic research results. The study involved 15 in-depth interviews of investigators involved in genetics and/or genomic research. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. The four themes that emerged from the data were the need for return of individual results including incidental findings, community engagement and the consenting process, implications and challenges to return of individual results. While researchers are willing to return clinically significant genetic results to research participants, they remain unsure of how this should be implemented. Suggestions to aid implementation of return of results included reconsenting of participants before receiving individual genetic results and increasing access to genetic counseling services. Community engagement to determine community perceptions and individual preferences for the return of results, and also prepare participants to safely receive results emerged as another way to support return of results. Researchers have a positive attitude toward the return of clinically significant genetic results to research participants. There is need to develop national guidance on genetic research and also build capacity for clinical genetics and genetic counseling.

Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of pathogenic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants was implemented. The impact and costs, including confirmatory genetic testing in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory, were evaluated.

METHODS

We exome sequenced 240 cases with thoracic aortic dissection and 258 controls, then examined 11 aortopathy genes. Pathogenic variants in 6 aortopathy genes (COL3A1, FBN1, LOX, PRKG1, SMAD3, and TGFBR2) were identified in 26 participants, representing 10.8% of the cohort (26/240). A second research sample was used to validate the initial findings. Mailed letters to participants disclosed that a potentially disease causing DNA alteration had been identified (neither the gene nor variant was disclosed). Participants were offered clinical genetic counseling and confirmatory genetic testing in a CLIA laboratory.

RESULTS

Excluding 6 participants who were deceased or lost to follow-up, 20 participants received the disclosure letter, 10 of whom proceeded with genetic counseling, confirmatory genetic testing, and enrolled in a survey study. Participants reported satisfaction with the letter (4.2 ± 0.7) and genetic counseling (4.4 ± 0.4; [out of 5, respectively]). The psychosocial impact was characterized by low decisional regret (11.5 ± 11.6) and distress (16.0 ± 4.2, [out of 100, respectively]). The average cost for 26 participants was $400, including validation and sending letters. The average cost for those who received genetic counseling and CLIA laboratory confirmation was $605.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants were satisfied with the return of clinically significant biobank genetic results and CLIA laboratory testing; however, the process required significant time and resources. These findings illustrate the trade-offs involved for researchers considering returning research genetic results.

Preferences of biobank participants for receiving actionable genomic test results: results of a recontacting study

PURPOSE

We sought to determine preferences of biobank participants whose samples were tested for clinically actionable variants but did not respond to an initial invitation to receive results.

METHODS

We recontacted a subsample of participants in the Kaiser Permanente Washington/University of Washington site of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network. The subsample had provided broad consent for their samples to be used for research but had not responded to one initial mailed invitation to receive their results. We sent a letter from the principal investigators with phone outreach. If no contact was made, we sent a certified letter stating our assumption that participant had actively refused. We collected reasons for declining.

RESULTS

We recontacted 123 participants. Response rate was 70.7% (n = 87). Of these, 62 (71.3%) declined the offer of returned results and 25 (28.7%) consented. The most common reasons provided for refusal included not wanting to know (n = 22) and concerns about insurability (n = 28).

CONCLUSION

Efforts to recontact biobank participants can yield high response. Though active refusal upon recontact was common, our data do not support assuming initial nonresponse to be refusal. Future research can work toward best practices for reconsenting, especially when clinically actionable results are possible.

Citizens' conceptions of the genome: Related values and practical implications in a citizen forum on the use of genomic information

BACKGROUND

The development of large data sets, including genomic data, coupled with rapid advances in personalized medicine where citizens increasingly face complex choices about the use of their genomic information implies that citizens are essential stakeholders in genomics. They should be engaged in the ethical, legal and societal issues to produce a framework that fosters trust and allows them to guide the technology based on their values.

OBJECTIVE

This article highlights that citizens' conceptions of the human genome inform about and make sense of their main values regarding the use of genomic information, which is critical for policymakers, experts and stakeholders to understand to maintain the public support in genomics.

METHOD

Through an inductive thematic approach, we reanalysed data collected for the Belgian citizen forum, which aimed to produce recommendations for the Ministry of Public Health and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Citizens expressed four conceptions of the genome that determined which uses of genomic information they supported: the most intimate part of individuals; 'I am more than my genome'; the individual's property vs the common good; and uncertainty and fear.

CONCLUSION

Diversity in their conceptions reveals remaining conflicts of values among citizens, mainly regarding a conception of the genome as an individual property or a common good. However, despite differing conceptions, shared values emerged such as solidarity, privacy, no genetic discrimination and the right to an open future, where individual and common interests coexist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The panel of the citizen forum consisted of 32 citizens.

Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

To explore prospective participants' preferences regarding the return of their individual-specific results from a dementia prevalence study (a probabilistic diagnosis of dementia).

METHODS/DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative study with 22 individuals aged 45 to 86 and resident in the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland). Participants had previously joined the validation phase of an epidemiological study into dementia and its impact.

RESULTS

We found that individuals welcome the return of their individual-specific results, provided these meet a number of validity, clinical, and personal utility criteria. They justify researchers' duty to return study findings with the principles of beneficence (eg, providing information that can help participants' medical decision-making) and justice (eg, acknowledging participants' efforts to help research by sharing their personal information). Furthermore, individuals anticipate societal benefits of the return of individual specific study findings, including improved interpersonal relationships among individuals and decreased dementia-related stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that researchers should address the return of individual-specific study results early on during study design and involve prospective participants in identifying both the conditions under which results should be offered and the perceived individual and societal benefits returning can have.

A survey of aortic disease biorepository participants' preferences for return of research genetic results

There is ongoing debate on whether and what research genetic results to return to study participants. To date, no study in this area has focused on aortopathy populations despite known genes that are clinically actionable. Participants (n = 225, 79% male, mean age = 61 years) with an aortopathy were surveyed to assess preferences for receiving research genetic results. Participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want results for pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes with implications for family members (81%) or that would change medical management (76%). Similarly, participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want actionable secondary findings related to cancer (75%) or other cardiac diseases (70%). Significantly lower interest was observed for non-actionable findings-pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes that would not change medical management (51%) and variants of uncertain significance (38%) (p < .0001). Higher health and genomic literacy were positively associated with interest in actionable findings. Most participants (>63%) were accepting of any means of return; however, a substantial minority (18%-38%) deemed certain technological means unacceptable (e.g., patient portal). Over 90% of participants reported that a range of health professionals, including cardiovascular specialists, genetics specialists, and primary care providers, were acceptable to return results. Participants with aortopathies are highly interested in research genetic results perceived to be medically actionable for themselves or family members. Participants are accepting of a variety of means for returning results. Findings suggest that research participants should be asked what results are preferred at time of informed consent and that genetic counseling may clarify implications of results that are not personally medically actionable.

Reporting Genetic Findings to Individual Research Participants: Guidelines From the Swiss Personalized Health Network

In 2017 the Swiss federal government established the Swiss Personalized Health Network (SPHN), a nationally coordinated data infrastructure for genetic research. The SPHN advisory group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was tasked with the creation of a recommendation to ensure ethically responsible reporting of genetic research findings to research participants in SPHN-funded studies. Following consultations with expert stakeholders, including geneticists, pediatricians, sociologists, university hospitals directors, patient representatives, consumer protection associations, and insurers, the ELSI advisory group issued its recommendation on "Reporting actionable genetic findings to research participants" in May 2020. In this paper we outline the development of this recommendation and the provisions it contains. In particular, we discuss some of its key features, namely: (1) that participation in SPHN-funded studies as a research subject is conditional to accepting that medically relevant genetic research findings will be reported; (2) that a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) should be created to support researchers' decision-making processes about reporting individual genetic research findings; (3) that such Multidisciplinary Expert Panel will make case-by-case decisions about whether to allow reporting of genetic findings, instead of relying on a pre-defined list of medically relevant variants; (4) that research participants shall be informed of the need to disclose genetic mutations when applying for private insurance, which may influence individual decisions about participation in research. By providing an account of the procedural background and considerations leading to the SPHN recommendation on "Reporting actionable genetic findings to research participants," we seek to promote a better understanding of the proposed guidance, as well as to contribute to the global dialog on the reporting of genetic research findings.

Return of Results in Population Studies: How Do Participants Perceive Them?

As a cornerstone of public health, epidemiology has lately undergone substantial changes enabled by, among other factors, the use of biobank infrastructures. In biobank-related research, the return of results to participants constitutes an important and complex ethical question. In this study, we qualitatively investigated how individuals perceive the results returned following their participation in cohort studies with biobanks. In our semi-structured interviews with 31 participants of two such German studies, we observed that some participants overestimate the nature of the personal information they will receive from the study. Although this misestimation does not seem to jeopardize the validity of the consent provided at recruitment, it may still represent a threat for participants’ trust in research and thus their long-term commitment, crucial for such studies. We argue that such misestimation may have ethical consequences on the principles guiding the reflection on the return of results in biobank research, i.e. autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and reciprocity. We suggest that shifting from the idea of directly benefiting participants through the return of research results could help focusing on benefiting society as a whole, thereby increasing research trustworthiness of population-based studies using biobanks.

Attitudes among South African university staff and students towards disclosing secondary genetic findings

The present study represents an initial step in understanding diverse academic perspectives on the disclosure of secondary findings (SFs) from genetic research conducted in Africa. Using an online survey completed by 674 university students and academic staff in South Africa, we elicited attitudes towards the return of SFs. Latent class analysis (LCA) was performed to classify sub-groups of participants according to their overall attitudes to returning SFs. We did not find substantial differences in attitudes towards the return of findings between staff and students. Overall, respondents were in favour of the return of SFs in genetics research, depending on the type. The majority of survey respondents (80%) indicated that research participants should be given the option of deciding whether to have genetic SFs returned. LCA revealed that the largest group (53%) comprised individuals with more favourable attitudes to the return of SFs in genetics research. Those with less favourable attitudes comprised only 4% of the sample. This study provides important insights that may, together with further empirical evidence, inform the development of research guidelines and policy to assist healthcare professionals and researchers.

Informed Consent for Genetic and Genomic Research

Genetic research often utilizes or generates information that is potentially sensitive to individuals, families, or communities. For these reasons, genetic research may warrant additional scrutiny from investigators and governmental regulators, compared to other types of biomedical research. The informed consent process should address the range of social and psychological issues that may arise in genetic research. This article addresses a number of these issues, including recruitment of participants, disclosure of results, psychological impact of results, insurance and employment discrimination, community engagement, consent for tissue banking, and intellectual property issues. Points of consideration are offered to assist in the development of protocols and consent processes in light of contemporary debates on a number of these issues. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Attitudes of Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients and Investigators Toward Genomic Study Enrollment, Consent Process, and Return of Genetic Results

Precision medicine genetics study design requires large, diverse cohorts and thoughtful use of electronic technologies. Involving patients in research design may increase enrollment and engagement, thereby enabling a means to relevant patient outcomes in clinical practice. Few data, however, illustrate attitudes of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and their family members toward genetic study design. This study assessed attitudes of 16 enrolled patients and their family members (P/FM), and 18 investigators or researchers (I/R) of the ongoing DCM Precision Medicine Study during a conjoint patient and investigator meeting using structured, self‐administered surveys examining direct‐to‐participant enrollment and web‐based consent, return of genetic results, and other aspects of genetic study design. Survey respondents were half women and largely identified as white. Web‐based consent was supported by 93% of P/FM and 88% of I/R. Most respondents believed that return of genetic results would motivate study enrollment, but also indicated a desire to opt out. Ideal study design preferences included a 1‐hour visit per year, along with the ability to complete study aspects by telephone or web and possibility of prophylactic medication. This study supports partnership of patients and clinical researchers to inform research priorities and study design to attain the promise of precision medicine for DCM.

Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers

Many research sponsors and genetic researchers agree that some medically relevant genetic findings should be offered to participants. The scarcity of research specific to returning genetic results related to psychiatric disorders hinders the ability to develop ethically justified and empirically informed guidelines for responsible return of results for these conditions. We surveyed 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries to examine their perceptions of challenges to returning individual results and views about best practices for the process of offering and returning results. Most researchers believed that disclosure of results should be delayed if a patient-participant is experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms. Respondents felt that there is little research on the impact of returning results to participants with psychiatric disorders and agreed that return of psychiatric genetics results to patient-participants may lead to discrimination by insurance companies or other third parties. Almost half of researchers believed results should be returned through a participant's treating psychiatrist, but many felt that clinicians lack knowledge about how to manage genetic research results. Most researchers thought results should be disclosed by genetic counselors or medical geneticists and in person; however, almost half also supported disclosure via telemedicine. This is the first global survey to examine the perspectives of researchers with experience working with this patient population and with these conditions. Their perspectives can help inform the development of much-needed guidelines to promote responsible return of results related to psychiatric conditions to patients with psychiatric disorders.

Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why

There is growing public demand that research participants receive all of their results, regardless of whether clinical action is indicated. Instead of the standard practice of returning only actionable results, we propose a reconceptualization called "return of value" to encompass the varied ways in which research participants value specific results and more general information they receive beyond actionable results. Our proposal is supported by a national survey of a diverse sample, which found that receiving research results would be valuable to most (78.5 percent) and would make them more likely to trust researchers (70.3 percent). Respondents highly valued results revealing genetic effects on medication response and predicting disease risk, as well as information about nearby clinical trials and updates on how their data were used. The information most valued varied by education, race/ethnicity, and age. Policies are needed to enable return of information in ways that recognize participants' differing informational needs and values.

Ubuntu philosophy and the consensus regarding incidental findings in genomic research: a heuristic approach

This study adopts a heuristic technique to argue the thesis that a set of norms rooted in the African philosophy of Ubuntu can usefully supplement current research guidelines for dealing with incidental findings discovered in genomic research. The consensus regarding incidental findings is that there is an ethical obligation to return individual genetic incidental findings that meet the threshold of analytic and clinical validity, have clinical utility, and are actionable, provided that research contributors have not opted out from receiving such information. This study outlines the hurdles that may hinder the integration of this consensus in mainstream clinical practice, and shows how an ethical theory from the global south may be used to address the same. This will advance the field of ethical, legal and social issues of personalized medicine by providing exposure to the under-represented African perspective on the ethical, legal, and social issues of genomics.