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

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Return of Participants' Incidental Genetic Research Findings: Experience from a Case-Control Study of Asthma in an American Indian Community

The proper communication of clinically actionable findings to participants of genetic research entails important ethical considerations, but has been challenging for a variety of reasons. We document an instance of the return of individual genetic results in the context of a very rural American Indian community, in hopes of providing insight to other investigators about potentially superior or inferior courses of action. This was a case/control study of asthma among 324 pediatric participants. Subsequently, microarray genotype data became available, providing over 2 million variants, incidentally including some conferring risk for conditions for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends return of results. The study investigators engaged in extensive consultation with the IRB, the tribal government, and local clinicians to better inform our approach. We were able to notify the two participants heterozygous for the one clinically actionable variant identified. One participant welcomed this information and proceeded to obtain further clinical work-up; the other participant declined further follow-up. While demanding considerable time and effort, the return of clinically actionable genetic results is important from both an ethical perspective and to provide an improved trust relationship with the community of research participants.

Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal

Genome sequencing is increasingly used in research and integrated into clinical care. In the research domain, large-scale analyses, including whole genome sequencing with variant interpretation and curation, virtually guarantee identification of variants that are pathogenic or likely pathogenic and actionable. Multiple guidelines recommend that findings associated with actionable conditions be offered to research participants in order to demonstrate respect for autonomy, reciprocity, and participant interests in health and privacy. Some recommendations go further and support offering a wider range of findings, including those that are not immediately actionable. In addition, entities covered by the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) may be required to provide a participant's raw genomic data on request. Despite these widely endorsed guidelines and requirements, the implementation of return of genomic results and data by researchers remains uneven. This article analyzes the ethical and legal foundations for researcher duties to offer adult participants their interpreted results and raw data as the new normal in genomic research.

Two-step offer and return of multiple types of additional genomic findings to families after ultrarapid trio genomic testing in the acute care setting: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3-6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals' perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally.

Return of Participants' Incidental Genetic Research Findings: Experience from a Case-Control Study of Asthma in an American Indian Community

PURPOSE

The proper communication of clinically actionable findings to participants of genetic research entails important ethical considerations, but has been challenging for a variety of reasons. We document an instance of return of individual genetic results in the context of a very rural American Indian community, in hopes of providing insight to other investigators about potentially superior or inferior courses of action.

METHODS

The original study was a case/control study of asthma among 324 pediatric participants. The study utilized a genotyping microarray assessing over 2 million variants, including one conferring risk for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends return of results to participants. The study investigators engaged in extensive consultation with the IRB, the Tribal government and local clinicians to better inform our approach.

RESULTS

With some difficulty we were able to notify the 2 participants heterozygous for this variant. One participant welcomed this information and proceeded to obtain further clinical work-up; the other participant declined further follow-up.

CONCLUSION

While demanding of considerable time and effort, the return of clinically actionable genetic results is important from both an ethical perspective and to provide an improved trust relationship with the community of research participants.

ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial

PURPOSE

Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design.

RESULTS

Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings.

CONCLUSION

The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.

Challenges for precision public health communication in the era of genomic medicine

Although still in the early stages of development, the advent of fast, high-output, and cost-effective next-generation DNA sequencing technology is moving precision medicine into public health. Before this shift toward next-generation sequencing in public health settings, individual patients met geneticists after showing symptoms and through limited family screening. In the new era of precision public health, everyone is a possible participant in genetic sequencing, simply by being born (newborn screening), by donating blood (biobanking), or through population screening. These initiatives are increasingly offered to individuals throughout their life and more individuals are encountering opportunities to use DNA sequencing. This article raises awareness of these growing areas and calls for different models of public engagement and communication about genomics, including screening asymptomatic populations, obtaining consent for unspecified and unforeseen future uses of genomic data, and managing variants of uncertain significance. Given that such communication challenges loom large, established norms of practice in genomic medicine and research should be reconsidered.

Perceived End-of-Life Educational Needs by Clinical Trials Nurses at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Objective

Determine palliative care end-of-life (EOL) educational needs among clinical trials nurses (CTNs) at an urban comprehensive cancer center.

Methods

The End-Of-Life Professional Caregiver Survey (EPCS) was used to determine the EOL educational needs of CTNs and collect demographics on years of experience, education, past EOL-specific training, and possession of their own advanced directive. The “Surprise Question” was also asked to explore the percent of patients on clinical trials who may be nearing EOL.

Results

Twenty-nine CTNs completed the survey. Mean years of experience as an RN and CTN was 10.45 and 2.5, respectively. 79% and 17% held a bachelors or master's degree, respectively. Twenty-seven percent reported previous End-of-Life Nursing Education Consortium (ELNEC) or similar training and 20% stated they had their own advanced directive. Mean total score for the EPCS was 94.83, with subscale means of 42.41 for the Patient and Family Centered Communication (PFCC), 26.9 for Cultural and Ethical Values (CEV), and 25.52 for the Effective Care Delivery (ECD). Highest scoring items included confidence in communicating with colleagues about EOL care, being present with dying patients, and recognizing patients who are appropriate for hospice referral. Lowest scoring items included participating in code status discussions, resolving ethical issues and family conflicts at EOL, and addressing requests for assisted suicide. Responses to the Surprise Question indicated that 27.5% of the CTNs would not be surprised if half or more of their patients died within the next 12 months.

Conclusions

Many patients with cancer on clinical trials may be nearing EOL. CTNs perceive the need for education to increase confidence in handling difficult communication.

When Not to Ask: A Defense of Choice-Masking Nudges in Medical Research

In this article, we examine the legality and ethics of a controversial but widespread practice in clinical research: choice-masking nudges. A choice-masking nudge (CMN) exists when a research team explicitly obscures a meaningful choice from participants by presenting a default decision as the standard way forward. Even though an easy-to-use opt-out mechanism is available for participants who independently express concerns with the standard default, the fact that a default has been pre-selected is not made obvious to research participants. To opt out of the nudge, a participant must overtly request non-standard treatment. We argue that use of such nudges in medical research can be justified by their individual, collective, and social benefits, provided that they respect autonomy and satisfy our four further acceptability conditions. The structure of this Article is as follows. In Part II, we describe three controversial cases of CMNs in medical research. In Part III, we provide background on nudging and explain how our proposed CMNs fit into the existing literature on nudging and libertarian paternalism. In Part IV, we explain how the reasonable person standard as employed by United States research regulations can be used to support CMNs. In Part IV, we anticipate some of the strongest objections to CMNs by explaining how CMNs are compatible with a wide range of plausible accounts of autonomy. Finally, in Part VI, we discuss four additional core considerations an acceptable CMN must meet: legitimate policy goals; benefits outweighing harms; burdens distributed fairly; and absence of ethically superior feasible alternatives. We also analyze the three existing controversies explored in Part II and show how each would benefit from the conceptual clarity offered by our analytic framework. Medical research is complicated and can be difficult for participants to understand; thoughtfully designed CMNs can play an important role in gently guiding large numbers of research participants toward decision outcomes that really are best for them and their communities.