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

Awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of genetic and genomics results in a hypothetical research context among patients in Uganda: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing presents unique ethical challenges for research and clinical practice, particularly in low-resource settings. To address such challenges, context-specific understanding of ethical, legal and social issues is essential. Return of genetics and genomics research (GGR) results remains an unresolved yet topical issue particularly in African settings that lack appropriate regulation and guidelines. Despite the need to understand what is contextually acceptable, there is a paucity of empirical research and literature on what constitutes appropriate practice with respect to GGR.The study assessed patients' awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of GGR results in a hypothetical context.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Respondents were patients attending the medical outpatient unit of Mulago National Hospital. Three deliberative focus group discussions involving 18 respondents were conducted. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes and several subthemes were identified. Most respondents were aware of genetic testing, supportive of GGR and receiving results. However, only a few had undergone genetic testing due to cost constraints. They articulated the need for adequate information and genetic counselling to inform decision-making. Privacy of results was important to respondents while others were willing to share results.

CONCLUSION

There was general awareness and support for GGR and the return of results. Stigmatisation emerged as a barrier to disclosure of results for some. Global health inequity impacts access and affordability of genetic testing and counselling in Africa and should be addressed as a matter of social justice.

How to communicate and what to disclose to participants in a recall-by-genotype research approach: a multistep empirical study

Recall-by-genotype (RbG) is a bottom-up approach using existing genetic data to design follow-up stratified studies. Genetic information may be partially disclosed at invitation, thus raising ethical issues which call for defined best practices for disclosure and communication in RbG approaches. Within the context of the ProtectMove sub-project of the Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, we investigated research participant perspectives on RbG communication strategies (Step 1 and 4, questionnaire with a subsample of CHRIS participants with and without previous experience of RbG, respectively). Additionally, we explored researchers' and study personnel's experience with RbG (Step 2 and 3, focus group discussion). In step 1 (N = 95), participants were generally satisfied with the study process. Most (71.6%) wanted to know their carrier status for personal and collective benefit. Tailored disclosure strategies and transparent, effective, and well-thought-out communication approaches were advocated by study personnel (Step 2, N = 6) and researchers (Step 3, N = 7). Challenges in dealing with uncertainty, concerns caused by RbG invitations, and the possibility of misunderstanding were also raised. In step 4 (N = 369), participants valued being informed of study details at the first invitation stage, and generally felt comfortable towards RbG study invitations (58.5%) and to receiving genetic information after the study (58.5-81.6%). Comfort and perceived impact of disclosure of genetic information varied according to the type of variant being potentially disclosed. This study suggested designing communication strategies, based on clear and understandable explanations, sensitive to participant expectations and preferences, developing case-by-case solutions for disclosure.

Understanding of Key Considerations for Effective Community Engagement in Genetics and Genomics Research: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Research Ethics Committee Members and National Research Regulators in a low Resource Setting

To attain effective community engagement (CE) for genetics and genomics research (GGR) is a challenge. This study aimed to analyzed participants' perspectives on how to attain effective CE for GGR in Uganda. A cross-sectional qualitative study involving in-depth interviews with twenty research ethics committee members and three national research regulators was conducted. GGR is faced with; low genetic literacy among stakeholders, social implications, cultural attitudes towards GGR, and lack of specific guidelines for CE in GGR. Attaining effective CE in GGR should involve; development of guidelines for GGR streamlining CE; boosting stakeholders' Knowledge in GGR and CE; engagement beyond sensitization; and consensus decision-making. Overall, attaining effective CE in GGR requires addressing the key aspects unique to GGR.

Research participant perceptions of personal utility in disclosure of individual research results from genomic analysis

This article elaborates research participant perspectives on the communication of individual research results from genomic analyses. While most analyses focus on how to communicate results from the perspectives of clinicians or researchers, there is insufficient data on user perspectives and how this information may be used, valued, and interpreted by patients and their families. The concept of personal utility, which considers factors related to quality of life, including on how information may impact the person's future decisions, has been shown to be particularly relevant to understand research participant perspectives and to move beyond clinical and analytic utility factors such as mortality and morbidity. This article draws from qualitative research of research participants awaiting genomic results in the case of sudden cardiac death. Our results show perspectives of personal utility in communication of genomic results, including cognitive, behavioral, and affective outcomes. Cognitive outcomes include gain of information, improved knowledge of etiology and inheritance characteristics, and curiosity for what might be found. Behavioral outcomes include being able to plan life decisions, while affective outcomes include various coping strategies used. We will also discuss the value of knowing negative results and incidental findings from the research participant's perspective. This contribution gives suggestions on best practices to guide genome analysis returns, including incorporating participant wishes on individualized communication at the consent stage; developing relational autonomy approaches; and engaging them throughout the research trajectory.

Perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research

BACKGROUND

Genetic research can yield information that is unrelated to the study's objectives but may be of clinical or personal interest to study participants. There is an emerging but controversial responsibility to return some genetic research results, however there is little evidence available about the views of genomic researchers and others on the African continent.

METHODS

We conducted a continental survey to solicit perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.

RESULTS

A total of 110 persons participated in the survey with 51 complete and 59 incomplete surveys received. Data was summarised using descriptive analysis. Overall, our respondents believed that individual genetic research results that are clinically actionable should be returned to study participants apparently because participants have a right to know things about their health, and it might also be a means for research participation to be recognized. Nonetheless, there is a need for development of precise guidance on how to return individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.

DISCUSSION

Participants should receive information that could promote a healthier lifestyle; only clinically actionable findings should be returned, and participants should receive all important information that is directly relevant to their health. Nevertheless, detailed guidelines should inform what ought to be returned. H3Africa guidelines stipulate that it is generally considered good practice for researchers to feedback general study results, but there is no consensus about whether individual genomic study results should also be fed back. The decision on what individual results to feedback, if any, is very challenging and the specific context is important to make an appropriate determination.

Researchers' Perspectives Regarding Ethical Issues of Biobank Research in the Arab Region

Background: The recent expansion of genomic biobank research in the Arab region in the Middle East North Africa has raised complex ethical and regulatory issues. However, there is a lack of studies regarding the views of Arab researchers involved in such research. We aimed to assess the perceptions and attitudes of Arab researchers regarding these issues in biobank research. Methods: We developed a questionnaire to assess the perceptions and attitudes regarding genetic research of researchers from Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, and Jordan. The questionnaire requested demographic data, perceptions, and attitudes regarding the collection, storage, and use of biospecimens and data, the use of broad consent, data security, data sharing, and community engagement. We used multiple linear regressions to identify predictors of perceptions and attitudes. Results: We recruited 383 researchers. Researchers favored equally the use of broad and tiered consent (44.1% and 39.1%, respectively). Most respondents agreed with the importance of confidentiality protections to ensure data security (91.8%). However, lower percentages were seen regarding the importance of community engagement (64.5%), data sharing with national colleagues and international partners (60.9% and 41.1%, respectively), and biospecimen sharing with national colleagues and international partners (59.9% and 36.2%, respectively). Investigators were evenly split on whether the return of individual research results should depend on the availability or not of a medical intervention that can be offered to address the genetic anomaly (47.5% and 46.4%, respectively). Predictors of attitudes toward biospecimen research included serving on Research Ethics Committees, prior research ethics training, and affiliation with nonacademic institutions. Conclusions: We recommend further exploratory research with researchers regarding the importance of community engagement and to address their concerns about data sharing, with researchers within and outside their countries.

Community engagement in genetics and genomics research: a qualitative study of the perspectives of genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Generally, there is unanimity about the value of community engagement in health-related research. There is also a growing tendency to view genetics and genomics research (GGR) as a special category of research, the conduct of which including community engagement (CE) as needing additional caution. One of the motivations of this study was to establish how differently if at all, we should think about CE in GGR.

AIM

To assess the perspectives of genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda on CE in GGR.

METHOD

A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted at Makerere University and Uganda Virus Research Institute. Twenty-five individuals participated, the majority being male (sixteen). Participants included nineteen genetics and genomics researchers (researchers and research coordinators), two CE officers, three nurses and one nursing counsellor. Data were collected using in-depth interviews and analyzed in a thematic manner using NVivo version 12 Plus.

STUDY FINDINGS

Thirteen of the respondents had conducted CE in their GGR in either a geographical and disease-specific community. Some respondents said CE principles are the same and there is no need for special consideration for CE in GGR. Others gave ethical issues in GGR that require special consideration for CE in such research and these were categorized into six themes: GGR is new to communities, Difficulty in communicating GGR by the researchers, Genes are shared in communities, Cultural sensitivities against GGR, Community attitude toward GGR, Some GGR studies take long to end, and Negotiation of research benefits. Special considerations for CE when conducting GGR were suggested and categorized into seven themes: creating awareness of GGR in communities, obtaining both community acceptance and individual consent, CE team composition, involve communities in solving GGR challenges, prolong CE in some GGR, develop guidelines for CE in GGR, and legal considerations on GGR.

CONCLUSION

GGR was characterized by special issues that require special CE considerations for such research.

Returning personal genetic information on susceptibility to arsenic toxicity to research participants in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

There is growing consensus that researchers should offer to return genetic results to participants, but returning results in lower-resource countries has received little attention. In this study, we return results on genetic susceptibility to arsenic toxicity to participants in a Bangladeshi cohort exposed to arsenic through naturally-contaminated drinking water. We examine the impact on behavioral changes related to exposure reduction.

METHODS

We enrolled participants from the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study who had (1) high arsenic (≥150 μg/g creatinine) in a recent urine sample and (2) existing data on genetic variants impacting arsenic metabolism efficiency (AS3MT and FTCD). We used genetic data to recruit three study groups, each with n = 103: (1) efficient metabolizers (low-risk), (2) inefficient metabolizers (high-risk), and (3) a randomly-selected control group (NCT05072132). At baseline, all participants received information on the effects of arsenic and how to reduce exposure by switching to a low arsenic well. The two intervention groups also received their arsenic metabolism efficiency status (based on their genetic results). Changes in behavior and arsenic exposure were assessed using questionnaires and urine arsenic measures after six months.

RESULTS

Clear decreases in urine arsenic after six months were observed for all three groups. The inefficient group self-reported higher levels of attempted switching to lower arsenic wells than the other groups; however, there was no detectable difference in urine arsenic reduction among the three groups. Participants showed strong interest in receiving genetic results and found them useful. The inefficient group experienced higher levels of anxiety than the other groups. Among the efficient group, that receiving genetic results did not appear to hinder behavioral change.

CONCLUSION

Returning genetic results increased self-reported exposure-reducing behaviors but did not have a detectable impact on reducing urine arsenic over and above a one-on-one educational intervention.

Research Participants' Preferences for Individual Results of Pharmacogenomics Research: A Case of a Ugandan HIV Research Institute

Little is known about whether people living with HIV would like to receive their results from pharmacogenomics research. This study explored the factors influencing participants' preferences and the reasons for their desire to receive individual results from pharmacogenomics research. We employed a convergent parallel mixed methods study design comprising a survey of 225 research participants and 5 deliberative focus group discussions with 30 purposively selected research participants. Almost all (98%) participants wanted to receive individual pharmacogenomics research results. Reasons for the desire to receive results were reciprocity for valuable time and effort, preparing for future eventualities, and the right to information about their health. Overall, participants desire to receive feedback from pharmacogenomics research, particularly if results are well established and clinically actionable.

Genetic and Genomic Researchers' Perspectives on Biological Sample Sharing in Collaborative Research in Uganda: A Qualitative Study

Numerous ethical, legal, and social issues arise with biological sample sharing. The study explored the perspectives of genetic and genomic researchers on the sharing of biological samples in international collaborative research. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 researchers. Participants expressed positive attitudes towards biobanking and appreciated the benefits of cross-border sharing of biological samples but noted that this practice had adversely affected local capacity building efforts. There was limited understanding of the ethical and regulatory frameworks governing sample sharing. Researchers emphasized the importance of respecting cultural values in biobanking research. Issues concerning poor governance and inequitable benefit sharing were also raised. There is a need for fair and equitable international collaborations where all researchers are treated with respect and as equal partners.

Mi PROTECT: A personalized smartphone platform to report back results to participants of a maternal-child and environmental health research cohort program in Puerto Rico

BACKGROUND

The PROTECT Center is a multi-project initiative that studies the relationship between exposure to environmental contaminants and preterm births during the prenatal and postnatal period among women living in Puerto Rico. PROTECT's Community Engagement Core and Research Translation Coordinator (CEC/RTC) play a key role in building trust and capacity by approaching the cohort as an engaged community that provides feedback about processes, including how personalized results of their exposure to chemicals should be reported back. The goal of the Mi PROTECT platform was to create a mobile-based application of DERBI (Digital Exposure Report-Back Interface) for our cohort that provides tailored, culturally appropriate information about individual contaminant exposures as well as education on chemical substances and approaches to exposure reduction.

METHODS

Participants (N = 61) were presented with commonly used terms in environmental health research related to collected samples and biomarkers, followed by a guided training on accessing and exploring the Mi PROTECT platform. Participants evaluated the guided training and Mi PROTECT platform answering a Likert scale in separated surveys that included 13 and 8 questions, respectively.

RESULTS

Participants provided overwhelmingly positive feedback on the clarity and fluency of presenters in the report-back training. Most participants reported that the mobile phone platform was both accessible and easy to navigate (83% and 80%, respectively) and that images included in the platform facilitated comprehension of the information. Overall, most participants (83%) reported that language, images, and examples in Mi PROTECT strongly represented them as Puerto Ricans.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from the Mi PROTECT pilot test informed investigators, community partners and stakeholders by demonstrating a new way to promote stakeholder participation and foster the "research right-to-know."

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.

Benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research in Uganda: Perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members

Background: Genomic and biobanking research has increased in Africa over the past few years. This has raised pertinent ethical, legal, and societal concerns for stakeholders such as sample or data ownership, commercialization, and benefit sharing. There is limited awareness of the concept of benefit sharing by stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members on benefit sharing in international collaborative genomic and biobanking research. Methods: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 researchers and 19 research ethics committee members. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. Results: Six themes emerged from the data and these included perceptions on the benefits of genomic and biobanking research; discussion of benefit sharing with participants during the informed consent process; legal implications of benefit sharing and the role of material transfer agreements; equity and fairness in sharing the benefits of genomic research; perceived barriers to fair benefit sharing; and recommendations for fostering fair and equitable benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research. Most respondents clearly understood the various forms of benefits of genomic and biobanking research and opined that such benefits should be fairly and equitably shared with low and middle-income country researchers and their institutions, and research communities. The perceived barriers to the fair benefit sharing unfavorable include power disparities, weak research regulatory frameworks, and lack of scientific integrity. Conclusion: Overall, respondents believed that the distribution of the advantages of genomic and biobanking research in North-South collaborative research was not equitable nor fair, and that the playing field was not leveled. Therefore, we advocate the following for fair and equitable benefit sharing: Building the capacities and empowering research scientists in developing nations; strengthening regulatory frameworks and extending the purview of the research ethics committee in the development and implementation of material transfer agreements; and meaningfully involving local research communities in benefit sharing negotiations.

Understanding of Critical Elements of Informed Consent in Genomic Research: A Case of a Paediatric HIV-TB Research Project in Uganda

Several studies have reported inadequate comprehension of informed consent for genomic research. This study aimed to assess research participants' understanding of critical elements of informed consent for genomic research. A cross-sectional survey involving 123 parents/caregivers of children participating in a paediatric genomic TB/HIV study was conducted. Only 47.2% of the participants had adequate understanding of consent information. The mean objective (actual) and subjective (perceived) understanding scores were 78.7% and 91.7% respectively. Participants adequately understood most elements of consent however, some elements were poorly understood including foreseeable risks, protection of confidentiality and compensation for research related injury. Overall there was inadequate comprehension of critical elements of informed consent and there was dissonance between actual and perceived comprehension of informed consent.

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.

Whole Exome Sequencing in South Africa: Stakeholder Views on Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings

The use of whole exome sequencing (WES) in medical research is increasing in South Africa (SA), raising important questions about whether and which individual genetic research results, particularly incidental findings, should be returned to patients. Whilst some commentaries and opinions related to the topic have been published in SA, there is no qualitative data on the views of professional stakeholders on this topic. Seventeen participants including clinicians, genomics researchers, and genetic counsellors (GCs) were recruited from the Western Cape in SA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the transcripts analysed using the framework approach for data analysis. Current roadblocks for the clinical adoption of WES in SA include a lack of standardised guidelines; complexities relating to variant interpretation due to lack of functional studies and underrepresentation of people of African ancestry in the reference genome, population and variant databases; lack of resources and skilled personnel for variant confirmation and follow-up. Suggestions to overcome these barriers include obtaining funding and buy-in from the private and public sectors and medical insurance companies; the generation of a locally relevant reference genome; training of health professionals in the field of genomics and bioinformatics; and multidisciplinary collaboration. Participants emphasised the importance of upscaling the accessibility to and training of GCs, as well as upskilling of clinicians and genetic nurses for return of genetic data in collaboration with GCs and medical geneticists. Future research could focus on exploring the development of stakeholder partnerships for increased access to trained specialists as well as community engagement and education, alongside the development of guidelines for result disclosure.

Guideline for feedback of individual genetic research findings for genomics research in Africa

As human genomics research in Africa continues to generate large amounts of data, ethical issues arise regarding how actionable genetic information is shared with research participants. The Human Heredity and Health in Africa Consortium (H3Africa) Ethics and Community Engagement Working group acknowledged the need for such guidance, identified key issues and principles relevant to genomics research in Africa and developed a practical guideline for consideration of feeding back individual genetic results of health importance in African research projects. This included a decision flowchart, providing a logical framework to assist in decision-making and planning for human genomics research projects. Although presented in the context of the H3Africa Consortium, we believe the principles described, and the decision flowchart presented here is applicable more broadly in African genomics research.

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.