Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study

Development and validation of a stakeholder-driven, self-contained electronic informed consent platform for trio-based genomic research studies

Increasingly long and complex informed consents have yielded studies demonstrating comparatively low participant comprehension and satisfaction with traditional face-to-face approaches. In parallel, interest in electronic consents for clinical and research genomics has steadily increased, yet limited data are available for trio-based genomic discovery studies. We describe the design, development, implementation, and validation of an electronic iConsent application for trio-based genomic research deployed to support genomic studies of cerebral palsy. iConsent development incorporated stakeholder perspectives including researchers, patient advocates, institutional review board members, and genomic data-sharing considerations. The iConsent platform integrated principles derived from prior electronic consenting research and elements of multimedia learning theory. Participant comprehension was assessed in an interactive teachback format. The iConsent application achieved nine of ten proposed desiderata for effective patient-focused electronic consenting for genomic research. Overall, participants demonstrated high comprehension and retention of key human subjects' considerations. Enrollees reported high levels of satisfaction with the iConsent, and we found that participant comprehension, iConsent clarity, privacy protections, and study goal explanations were associated with overall satisfaction. Although opportunities exist to optimize iConsent, we show that such an approach is feasible, can satisfy multiple stakeholder requirements, and can realize high participant satisfaction and comprehension while increasing study reach.

Patient decision support resources inform decisions about cancer susceptibility genetic testing and risk management: a systematic review of patient impact and experience

Background

Patients with genetic cancer susceptibility are presented with complex management options involving difficult decisions, for example about genetic testing, treatment, screening and risk-reducing surgery/medications. This review sought to explore the experience of patients using decision support resources in this context, and the impact on decision-making outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies involving adults with or without cancer who used a decision support resource pre- or post-genetic test for any cancer susceptibility. To gather a broad view of existing resources and gaps for development, digital or paper-based patient resources were included and not limited to decision aids. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise patient impact and experience.

Results

Thirty-six publications describing 27 resources were included. Heterogeneity of resources and outcome measurements highlighted the multiple modes of resource delivery and personal tailoring acceptable to and valued by patients. Impact on cognitive, emotional, and behavioural outcomes was mixed, but mainly positive. Findings suggested clear potential for quality patient-facing resources to be acceptable and useful.

Conclusions

Decision support resources about genetic cancer susceptibility are likely useful to support decision-making, but should be co-designed with patients according to evidence-based frameworks. More research is needed to study impact and outcomes, particularly in terms of longer term follow-up to identify whether patients follow through on decisions and whether any increased distress is transient. Innovative, streamlined resources are needed to scale up delivery of genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer in mainstream oncology clinics. Tailored patient-facing decision aids should also be made available to patients identified as carriers of a pathogenic gene variant that increases future cancer risks, to complement traditional genetic counselling.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020220460, identifier: CRD42020220460.

Navigating biosafety concerns within COVID-19 do-it-yourself (DIY) science: an ethnographic and interview study

Non-establishment or do-it-yourself (DIY) science involves individuals who may not have formal training conducting experiments outside of institutional settings. While prior scholarship has examined the motivations and values of those involved in the subset of DIY science known as "DIY biology," little research has addressed how these individuals navigate ethical issues in practice. The present study therefore aimed to understand how DIY biologists identify, approach, and resolve one particular ethical issue-biosafety-in their work. We conducted a digital ethnography of Just One Giant Lab (JOGL), the primary hub for DIY biology during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequently conducted interviews with individuals involved with JOGL. We found that JOGL was the first global DIY biology initiative to create a Biosafety Advisory Board and develop formal biosafety guidelines that applied to different groups in multiple locations. There was disagreement, however, regarding whether the Board should have an advisory role or provide mandatory oversight. We found that JOGL practiced ethical gatekeeping of projects that fell outside the limits defined by the Board. Our findings show that the DIY biology community recognized biosafety issues and tried to build infrastructure to facilitate the safe conduct of research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2.

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.

Laboratory-related outcomes from integrating an accessible delivery model for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in populations with barriers to access

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the laboratory-related outcomes of participants who were offered genomic testing based on cancer family history risk assessment tools.

METHODS

Patients from clinics that serve populations with access barriers, who are screened at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome based on adapted family history collection tools (the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool and PREMM₅), were offered exome-based panel testing for cancer risk and medically actionable secondary findings. We used descriptive statistics, electronic health record review, and inferential statistics to explore participant characteristics and results, consultations and actions related to pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified, and variables predicting category of findings, respectively.

RESULTS

Of all the participants, 87% successfully returned a saliva kit. Overall, 5% had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic cancer risk variant and 1% had a secondary finding. Almost all (14/15, 93%) participants completed recommended consultations with nongenetics providers after an average of 17 months. The recommended actions (eg, breast magnetic resonance imaging) were completed by 17 of 25 participants. Participant personal history of cancer and PREMM₅ score were each associated with the category of findings (history and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .02; history and breast cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .01; PREMM₅^TM score; and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This accessible model of hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing yielded results that were often acted upon by patients and physicians.

Adapting a conceptual framework to engage diverse stakeholders in genomic/precision medicine research

Introduction

Genomic/precision medicine offers a remarkable opportunity to improve health and address health disparities. Genomic medicine is the study of genes and their interaction with health. Precision medicine is an approach to disease prevention and treatment that considers individual variability in genes, environment and lifestyle. Conclusions from studies lacking diversity may hinder generalizability as genomic variation occurs within and between populations. Historical factors, such as medical mistrust, ethical issues related to decision making, and data sharing pose complex challenges that may further widen inequities in genomic/precision medicine if not appropriately addressed. Although few biomedical studies integrate priorities of community partners into their conceptual framework, effective implementation of genomic/precision medicine research calls for the involvement of diverse stakeholders to expand traditional unidirectional models of engagement in clinical research towards authentic bidirectional collaboration.

Methods

A multipronged approach was used integrating an evidence‐based literature review and best practices in developing and evaluating the engagement of diverse stakeholders in genomic and precision medicine research. This was combined with expert consensus building to adapt a conceptual model from a community engagement framework to addressing genomics to be scalable to engagement science, which is challenging to genomic/precision medicine research.

Results

The final enhanced conceptual framework is composed of four overarching dimensions now inclusive of domains in trust, exploitation, discrimination, privacy risk, stigmatization, prior harms/injustices, failure to recognize coexisting governments, intersectionality and research transformation. This conceptual framework proposes effective participant research engagement strategies for upstream relationship building, distinct from downstream recruitment strategies in which the goal is enrolment.

Conclusion

To further shape the evolution of genomic/precision medicine research, it is important to leverage existing partnerships, engage participants beyond recruitment and embrace diverse perspectives.

Patient or Public Contribution

In preparation of this manuscript, the perspectives of the community partners on the impact of engaging in genomic/precision medicine research beyond research participation were integrated into this conceptual framework from various guided listening sessions held in diverse communities.

Motivations and concerns of patients considering participation in an implementation study of a hereditary cancer risk assessment program in diverse primary care settings

PURPOSE

Understanding the motivations and concerns of patients from diverse populations regarding participation in implementation research provides the needed evidence about how to design and conduct studies for facilitating access to genetics services. Within a hereditary cancer screening study assessing a multifaceted intervention, we examined primary care patients' motivations and concerns about participation.

METHODS

We surveyed and interviewed study participants after they enrolled, surveyed those who did not complete enrollment, and used descriptive qualitative and quantitative methods to identify motivations and concerns regarding participation.

RESULTS

Survey respondents' most common motivations included a desire to learn about their future risk (81%), receiving information that may help family (58%), and a desire to advance research (34%). Interviews revealed 3 additional important factors: affordability of testing, convenience of participation, and clinical relationships supporting research decision-making. Survey data of those who declined enrollment showed that the reasons for declining included concerns about privacy (38%), burdens of the research (19%), and their fear of not being able to cope with the genetic information (19%).

CONCLUSION

Understanding the facilitating factors and concerns that contribute to decisions about research may reveal ways to improve equity in access to care and research that could lead to greater uptake of genomic medicine across diverse primary care patient populations.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

Patient perspectives on how to demonstrate respect: Implications for clinicians and healthcare organizations

OBJECTIVE

Clinicians and healthcare organizations are ethically obligated to treat patients with respect, yet it is not clear what actions best demonstrate respect to patients. This exploratory qualitative study aimed to understand what actions on both an individual and organizational level effectively demonstrate respect for primary care patients.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with primary care patients in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Oregon and an integrated safety net health system in Colorado who were participating in a genomics implementation research study of a hereditary cancer screening program. We systematically coded interview transcripts using a coding framework developed based on iterative review of the interview guide and transcripts. We further analyzed the data coded with sub-codes relating to patients' experiences with respect in healthcare using a descriptive content analysis approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 40 English-speaking (n = 30, 75%) and Spanish-speaking (n = 10, 25%) patients. Most interviewees identified as female (n = 35, 88%) and either Hispanic/Latino(a) (n = 17, 43%) or White or European American (n = 15, 38%). Interviewees identified two categories of efforts by individual clinicians that demonstrate respect: engaging with patients and being transparent. They identified five efforts by healthcare organizations: promoting safety and inclusivity, protecting patient privacy, communicating about scheduling, navigating financial barriers to care, and ensuring continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that patients' experiences of respect depend on efforts by individual clinicians as well as healthcare organizations. Our findings offer insight into how clinicians can build stronger partnerships with patients and how organizations can seek to promote access to care and patient safety and comfort. They also illustrate areas for future research and quality improvement to more effectively respect patients.

Diagnostic genetic testing for neurodevelopmental psychiatric disorders: closing the gap between recommendation and clinical implementation

Advances in laboratory testing have significantly increased the detection of rare genetic etiologies of neurodevelopmental psychiatric disorders (NPD), particularly developmental delay/ intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, and schizophrenia. Establishing a genetic diagnosis has important medical and personal utility for individuals with these conditions. Diagnostic genetic tests for NPD are clinically available but underutilized outside of medical genetics settings. Without clear multidisciplinary consensus recommendations, active involvement of medical specialists working with NPD patients, and practical education and training, the implementation of genetic testing for NPD will continue to lag behind other areas of medicine. In the long-term, collaborative efforts to address educational, logistical, and workforce obstacles will improve patient care and pave the way for targeted, effective NPD treatments.

Demonstrating 'respect for persons' in clinical research: findings from qualitative interviews with diverse genomics research participants

The ethical principle of 'respect for persons' in clinical research has traditionally focused on protecting individuals' autonomy rights, but respect for participants also includes broader, although less well understood, ethical obligations to regard individuals' rights, needs, interests and feelings. However, there is little empirical evidence about how to effectively convey respect to potential and current participants. To fill this gap, we conducted exploratory, qualitative interviews with participants in a clinical genomics implementation study. We interviewed 40 participants in English (n=30) or Spanish (n=10) about their experiences with respect in the study and perceptions of how researchers in a hypothetical observational study could convey respect or a lack thereof. Most interviewees were female (93%), identified as Hispanic/Latino(a) (43%) or non-Hispanic white (38%), reported annual household income under US$60 000 (70%) and did not have a Bachelor's degree (65%); 30% had limited health literacy. We identified four key domains for demonstrating respect: (1) personal study team interactions, with an emphasis on empathy, appreciation and non-judgment; (2) study communication processes, including following up and sharing results with participants; (3) inclusion, particularly ensuring materials are understandable and procedures are accessible; and (4) consent and authorisation, including providing a neutral informed consent and keeping promises regarding privacy protections. While the experience of respect is inherently subjective, these findings highlight four key domains that may meaningfully demonstrate respect to potential and current research participants. Further empirical and normative work is needed to substantiate these domains and evaluate how best to incorporate them into the practice of research.