Research Participants' Attitudes towards Receiving Information on Genetic Susceptibility to Arsenic Toxicity in Rural Bangladesh

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.

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.