Preferences regarding genetic research results: comparing veterans and nonveterans responses

"Holy cow, where do I sign up?" Attitudes of Military Veterans toward Epigenomic Biomarker Toxic Exposure Testing

Background

With the signing of the PACT Act in 2022, there is great interest and investment in studying toxic exposures encountered during military service. One way to address this is through the identification of epigenomic biomarkers associated with exposures. There is increasing evidence suggesting that exposure to toxic substances may result in alterations to DNA methylation and resultant gene expression. These epigenomic changes may lead to adverse health effects for exposed individuals and their offspring. While the development of epigenomic biomarkers for exposures could facilitate understanding of these exposure-related health effects, such testing could also provide unwanted information.

Objectives

Explore Veterans' attitudes toward epigenomic biomarker research and the potential to test for past exposures that could pose intergenerational risk.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with Veterans (n=22) who experienced potentially harmful exposures during their military service.

Results

Twenty Veterans said they would hypothetically want to receive epigenomic information related to their toxic exposures and potential health impacts as part of a research study. Veterans identified nine potential benefits of this research, including promoting insights concerning intergenerational health, identification of early health interventions to mitigate the impact of exposures, and additional knowledge or explanation for their experiences. At the same time, 16 participants noted potential risks, including psychological distress in response to results, concerns about receiving non-actionable, uncertain, or inaccurate results, and issues related to privacy and discrimination. Ten participants also identified at least one condition in their children that they thought could be related to their exposure and most said they would be interested in receiving research results related to their children's and grandchildren's risk of developing a health condition associated with their exposure.

Discussion

Results suggest that Veterans might welcome benefits of epigenomic research related to military exposures yet have some concerns about potential negative impacts.

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.

"A Gift to My Family for Their Future": Attitudes about Genetic Research Participation

BACKGROUND

Broad participation in genetic research is needed to promote equitable advances in disease treatment and prevention.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess motivations for, and concerns about, genetic research participation.

METHODS

The Genetics in Research and Health Care Survey was sent in winter 2017-2018 to 57,331 adult Kaiser Permanente (KP) members from 7 US regions to assess attitudes about genetic testing in health care and research. The survey included an open-ended question on why members would or would not participate in genetic research. Open text responses to this question were coded in the qualitative analysis software Dedoose and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Code summaries were organized by major themes, subthemes, and exemplary quotes.

RESULTS

Of the 10,369 participants who completed the survey, 2,645 (25%) provided a comment describing reasons they would or would not participate in research involving genetic testing. Respondents who provided a text comment were 64% female, 49% non-Hispanic (NH) White, 17% Asian/Pacific Islander, 20% Hispanic, and 14% NH Black. The primary themes identified were (1) altruism; (2) decision-making and planning; (3) data use; and (4) data security. These major themes were consistent across each race and ethnic group.

CONCLUSIONS

To promote broad participation in genetic research, it is important that recruitment materials address the primary motivators for genetic research participation, including altruism and the potential use of results for personal decision-making. Study materials should also address concerns about possible misuse of genetic information and fears over potential data breaches.

A systematic approach to the disclosure of genomic findings in clinical practice and research: a proposed framework with colored matrix and decision-making pathways

Background

Whether and how to disclose genomic findings obtained in the course of genomic clinical practice and medical research has been a controversial global bioethical issue over the past two decades. Although several recommendations and judgment tools for the disclosure of genomic findings have been proposed, none are sufficiently systematic or inclusive or even consistent with each other. In order to approach the disclosure/non-disclosure practice in an ethical manner, optimal and easy-to-use tools for supporting the judgment of physicians/researchers in genomic medicine are necessary.

Methods

The bioethics literature on this topic was analyzed to parse and deconstruct the somewhat overlapping and therefore ill-defined key concepts of genomic findings, such as incidental, primary, secondary, and other findings. Based on the deconstruction and conceptual analyses of these findings, we then defined key parameters from which to identify the strength of duty to disclose (SDD) for a genomic finding. These analyses were then applied to develop a framework with the SDD matrix and systematic decision-making pathways for the disclosure of genomic findings.

Results

The following six major parameters (axes), along with sub-axes, were identified: Axis 1 (settings and institutions where findings emerge); Axis 2 (presence or absence of intention and anticipatability in discovery); Axis 3 (maximal actionability at the time of discovery); Axis 4 (net medical importance); Axis 5 (expertise of treating physician/researcher); and Axis 6 (preferences of individual patients/research subjects for disclosure). For Axes 1 to 4, a colored SDD matrix for genomic findings was developed in which levels of obligation for disclosing a finding can be categorized. For Axes 5 and 6, systematic decision-making pathways were developed via the SDD matrix.

Conclusion

We analyzed the SDD of genomic findings and developed subsequent systematic decision-making pathways of whether and how to disclose genomic findings to patients/research subjects and their relatives in an ethical manner. Our comprehensive framework may help physicians and researchers in genomic medicine make consistent ethical judgments regarding the disclosure of genomic findings.

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.

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.

Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network

A challenge in returning genomic test results to research participants is how best to communicate complex and clinically nuanced findings to participants in a manner that is scalable to the large numbers of participants enrolled. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of genetic results letters produced at each Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network site to assess their readability and content. Letters were collected from each site, and a qualitative analysis of letter content and a quantitative analysis of readability statistics were performed. Because letters were produced independently at each eMERGE site, significant heterogeneity in readability and content was found. The content of letters varied widely from a baseline of notifying participants that results existed to more detailed information about positive or negative results, as well as materials for sharing with family members. Most letters were significantly above the Centers for Disease Control-suggested reading level for health communication. While continued effort should be applied to make letters easier to understand, the ongoing challenge of explaining complex genomic information, the implications of negative test results, and the uncertainty that comes with some types of test and result makes simplifying letter text challenging.

Return of Research-Related Genetic Test Results and Genetic Discrimination Concerns: Facilitators and Barriers of Genetic Research Participation in Diverse Groups

BACKGROUND

Most genetics studies lack the diversity necessary to ensure that all groups benefit from genetic research.

OBJECTIVES

To explore facilitators and barriers to genetic research participation.

METHODS

We conducted a survey on genetics in research and healthcare from November 15, 2017 to February 28, 2018 among adult Kaiser Permanente (KP) members who had been invited to participate in the KP biobank (KP Research Bank). We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing the willingness to participate in genetic research under different return of results scenarios and genetic discrimination concerns between groups, according to their demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 57,331 KP members were invited to participate, and 10,369 completed the survey (18% response rate). Respondents were 65% female, 44% non-Hispanic White (NH White), 22% Asian/Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (Asian/PI), 19% non-Hispanic Black (NH Black), and 16% Hispanic. Respondents willing to participate in genetic research ranged from 22% with no results returned to 87% if health-related genetic results were returned. We also found variation by race/ethnicity; when no results were to be returned, Asian/PIs, Hispanics, and NH Blacks were less likely to want to participate than NH Whites (p < 0.05). However, when results were returned, disparities in the willingness to participate disappeared for NH Blacks and Hispanics. Genetic discrimination concerns were more prevalent in Asian/PIs, Hispanics, and NH Blacks than in NH Whites (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Policies that prohibit the return of results and do not address genetic discrimination concerns may contribute to a greater underrepresentation of diverse groups in genetic research.

Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results

OBJECTIVES

Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR).

METHODS

Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208).

RESULTS

The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed.

Prioritizing Approaches to Engage Community Members and Build Trust in Biobanks: A Survey of Attitudes and Opinions of Adults within Outpatient Practices at the University of Maryland

Background: Achieving high participation of communities representative of all sub-populations is needed in order to ensure broad applicability of biobank study findings. This study aimed to understand potentially mutable attitudes and opinions commonly correlated with biobank participation in order to inform approaches to promote participation in biobanks. Methods: Adults from two University of Maryland (UMD) Faculty Physicians, Inc. outpatient practices were invited to watch a video and complete a survey about a new biobank initiative. We used: Chi-square to assess the relationship between willingness to join the biobank and participant characteristics, other potentially mutable attitudes and opinions, and trust in the UMD. We also used t-test to assess the relationship with trust in medical research. We also prioritize proposed actions to improve attitudes and opinions about joining biobanks according to perceived responsiveness. Results: 169 participants completed the study, 51% of whom indicated a willingness to join the biobank. Willingness to join the biobank was not associated with age, gender, race, or education but was associated with respondent comfort sharing samples and clinical information, concerns related to confidentiality, potential for misuse of information, trust in UMD, and perceived health benefit. In ranked order, potential actions we surveyed that might alleviate some of these concerns include: increase chances to learn more about the biobank, increase opportunities to be updated, striving to put community concerns first, including involving community members as leaders of biobank research, and involving community members in decision making. Conclusions: This study identified several attitudes and opinions that influence decisions to join a biobank, including many concerns that could potentially be addressed by engaging community members. We also demonstrate our method of prioritizing ways to improve attitudes and opinions about joining a biobank according to perceived responsiveness.

Family decision maker perspectives on the return of genetic results in biobanking research

PURPOSE

There are many ethical considerations regarding the return of genetic results to biobanking participants, especially when biobanks collect samples from deceased organ and tissue donors that require the authorization of a family decision maker (FDM). This article explores FDM knowledge and opinions regarding return of genetic results in the context of the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project, which does not return results to participants.

METHODS

Data collection included a survey completed by Organ Procurement Organization requesters (n = 22) and semistructured telephone interviews with FDM (n = 55).

RESULTS

Nearly every FDM wanted some form of genetic results returned. Information regarding treatable diseases (94.3%) and diseases that could affect their children (84.9%) were more desirable than that regarding untreatable diseases (71.7%). Sixty percent of FDMs understood that GTEx would not return genetic results. FDMs were four times more likely to have correct knowledge of the GTEx policy when their GTEx requester reported discussing the topic with them.

CONCLUSION

FDMs from the GTEx project were interested in receiving genetic test results. Marked changes in the infrastructure of the GTEx would be required to alter the policy. Regardless, care must be taken to ensure that the return policy is clearly communicated with FDMs to dispel misconceptions.Genet Med 18 1, 82-88.

Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project

OBJECTIVE

To assess biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of participants in the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity biobank. Respondents were surveyed about preferences for disclosure, importance of disclosure, communication of results with practitioners, and sharing of results after respondents' death. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess independent sociodemographic and clinical predictors of disclosure preferences. Data collection occurred from June 6, 2011, to June 25, 2012.

RESULTS

Among 1154 biobank participants, 555 (48%) responded. Most thought that research result disclosure was important (90%). Preference for disclosure varied, depending on availability of disease treatment (90% vs 64%, P<.001), high vs low disease risk (79% vs 66%, P<.001), and serious vs mild disease (83% vs 68%, P<.001). More than half of respondents (57%) preferred disclosure even when there is uncertainty about the results' meaning, and 87% preferred disclosure if the disease is highly heritable. Older age was positively associated with interest in disclosure, whereas female sex, nonwhite race, diabetes mellitus, and depression and/or anxiety were negatively associated with disclosure. More than half of respondents (52%) would want their results returned to their nearest biological relative after death.

CONCLUSIONS

OurGenes biobank participants report strong preferences for disclosure of research results, and most would designate a relative to receive results after death. Participant preferences for serious vs mild disease, high vs low disease risk, and availability of disease treatment differed significantly. Future research should consider family members' preferences for receiving research results from enrolled research participants.

Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research: a conjoint analysis

PURPOSE

Recent policies specifying criteria about which individual research results to return leave considerable discretion to researchers. This study investigated the types of results that the public wants when participating in genetic research and whether preferences differ based on willingness to participate.

METHODS

A representative survey of US adults used conjoint analysis to measure priorities among eight principles of a results policy for a proposed large-cohort study. Policy preferences were measured using 12 tasks in which respondents chose between two groupings of the policy principles. Stratified analysis compared those self-identified as likely or unlikely to participate in genomic research.

RESULTS

Of 1,515 respondents, 56% would participate in the proposed study. All eight principles were positively endorsed by participants (all P < 0.003), with priority placed on providing results at no cost and returning well-validated results for treatable and serious diseases. Providing detailed result reports was more highly valued than providing staff to explain results (P = 0.0005). Receiving results about major changes in risk was marginally disvalued by those unlikely to participate (P = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

Public preferences for well-validated individual research results for serious, actionable diseases agree with emerging recommendations. However, because preferences for receiving individual research results vary, some choices should be offered to research participants.

Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing

Purpose

To explore the implications of sequencing information and stated preferences for return of results among research participants.

Methods

Six focus groups were held with 39 ClinSeq^® participants. Groups included participants who had received results, those who had not, those affected with cardiovascular disease and healthy adults. Audio recordings of the sessions were transcribed and coded and analyzed for themes.

Results

All participants expressed interest in receiving results that are medically actionable, non-actionable, carrier and less so variants that cannot be interpreted. Most participants preferred to receive results in person although several endorsed use of Internet-based resources that they could return to. Participants identified benefits for health management along with satisfying curiosity, making scientific contributions, and partnering in research. Value was seen in gaining control over health risks. Concerns were distress and/or fear that may result. Some participants were opposed to or ambivalent about learning certain types of results, particularly those having to do with diseases that were incurable or that might have implications for the health of their children.

Conclusion

There was relative enthusiasm about the value of learning sequencing information, yet it was tempered by concern about negative feeling responses and aversion to learning about incurable conditions.

Whole exome sequencing and functional studies identify an intronic mutation in TRAPPC2 that causes SEDT

Skeletal dysplasias are challenging to diagnose because of their phenotypic variability, genetic heterogeneity, and diverse inheritance patterns. We conducted whole exome sequencing of a Turkish male with a suspected X-linked skeletal dysplasia of unknown etiology as well as his unaffected mother and maternal uncle. Bioinformatic filtering of variants implicated in skeletal system development revealed a novel hemizygous mutation, c.341-(11_9)delAAT, in an intron of TRAPPC2, the causative locus of spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia tarda (SEDT). We show that this deletion leads to the loss of wild-type TRAPPC2 and the generation of two functionally impaired mRNAs in patient cells. These consequences are predicted to disrupt function of SEDLIN/TRAPPC2. The clinical and research data were returned, with appropriate caveats, to the patient and informed his disease status and reproductive choices. Our findings expand the allelic repertoire of SEDT and show how prior filtering of the morbid human genome informed by inheritance pattern and phenotype, when combined with appropriate functional tests in patient-derived cells, can expedite discovery, overcome issues of missing data and help interpret variants of unknown significance. Finally, this example shows how the return of a clinically confirmed mutational finding, supported by research allele pathogenicity data, can assist individuals with inherited disorders with life choices.

Attitudes of African-American parents about biobank participation and return of results for themselves and their children

INTRODUCTION

Biobank-based research is growing in importance. A major controversy exists about the return of aggregate and individual research results.

METHODS

The authors used a mixed-method approach in order to study parents' attitudes towards the return of research results regarding themselves and their children. Participants attended four 2-h, deliberative-engagement sessions held on two consecutive Saturdays. Each session consisted of an educational presentation followed by focus-group discussions with structured questions and prompts. This manuscript examines discussions from the second Saturday which focused on the benefits and risks of returning aggregate and individual research results regarding both adults (morning session) and children (afternoon session). Attitudes were assessed in pre-engagement and post-engagement surveys.

RESULTS

The authors recruited 45 African-American adults whose children received medical care at two healthcare facilities on the South Side of Chicago that serve different socioeconomic communities. Three dominant themes were identified. First, most participants stated that they would enrol themselves and their children in a biobank, although there was a vocal minority opposed to enrolling children, particularly children unable to participate in the consent process. Second, participants did not distinguish between the results they wanted to receive regarding themselves and their children. Supplemental survey data found no attitudinal changes pre-engagement and post-engagement. Third, participants believed that children should be allowed access to their health information, but they wanted to be involved in deciding when and how the information was shared.

DISCUSSION

Participant attitudes are in tension with current biobank policies. An intensive educational effort had no effect on their attitudes.

Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study

PURPOSE

People are interested in receiving their individual research results in exchange for participating in genetic research. However, it is unclear whether the public understands the nature and limitations of these results and whether they would want information with unknown clinical utility.

METHODS

We conducted 10 focus groups in three US cities to examine the types of results people would want and the perceived value of different types of individual research results.

RESULTS

Nearly all focus group participants said they would want at least some individual research results returned. Priority was placed on results that are well understood. Less important to participants were the magnitude of the risk conferred and actionability of the result. In addition to helping treat or prevent disease, participants identified several other potential health-related and personal reasons for wanting individual research results. Many believed that researchers have an obligation to return individual research results. Although most people would prefer to receive as much information as possible, many would accept the return of a limited set of results.

CONCLUSION

Participants understood the nuances and limitations of individual research results. Researchers deciding the value of returning a given result should consider using a broader definition of clinical utility as well as the possible personal utility of the information.

Veterans' experience in using the online Surgeon General's family health history tool

AIM: To assess veterans' experience and satisfaction in using the Surgeon General's (SG) online family health history (FHH) tool, and determine the perceived facilitators and barriers to using the online SG-FHH tool. MATERIALS #ENTITYSTARTX00026; METHODS: A mixed-method using both qualitative and quantitative approaches was employed in this study. A total of 35 veterans at the VA Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, USA were invited to enter their FHH information using the online SG-FHH tool, complete the study's satisfaction survey and participate in a short semi-structured interview. The goal of the semi-structured interviews was to assess participants perceived facilitators and barriers to using the online SG-FHH tool. All participants were also provided with a printed copy of their pedigree, which was generated by the SG-FHH tool and were encouraged to share it with their relatives and providers. RESULTS: The majority of participants (91%) said that they had access to a computer with internet capability and 77% reported that they knew how to use a computer. More than two-thirds of the participants felt that items on the SG-FHH tool were easy to read and felt that FHH categories were relevant to their family's health. Approximately 94% of participants viewed the SG-FHH tool as useful, and the majority of participants (97%) indicated that they were likely to recommend the tool to others. Content analysis of the semi-structured interviews highlighted several barriers to veterans' use of the SG-FHH tool and their FHH information. These included: lack of patients' knowledge regarding their relatives' FHH, and privacy and confidentiality concerns. CONCLUSION: This study provides information on the performance and functionality of an inexpensive and widely accessible method for FHH collection. Furthermore, our findings highlight several opportunities and challenges facing the utilization of FHH information as a clinical and genomic tool at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The results suggest that strategies that improve veterans' knowledge regarding the importance of their FHH information and that address their concerns about privacy and confidentiality may enhance the successful implementation of FHH information into VHA clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS: identifying a locally accepted method for FHH collection and documentation which can be conducted outside of the patient visit will reduce time burdens for providers and patients and allow for a focus on other important topics during clinic visits. Improvement in familial risk screening and assessment will enable the VHA to be prepared for personalized medicine and focus their resources on promoting critically important health behaviors for populations with the highest risk of developing chronic diseases and their complications.