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

A proposal for an inclusive working definition of genetic discrimination to promote a more coherent debate

Genetic discrimination is an evolving phenomenon that impacts fundamental human rights such as dignity, justice and equity. Although, in the past, various definitions to better conceptualize genetic discrimination have been proposed, these have been unable to capture several key facets of the phenomenon. In this Perspective, we explore definitions of genetic discrimination across disciplines, consider criticisms of such definitions and show how other forms of discrimination and stigmatization can compound genetic discrimination in a way that affects individuals, groups and systems. We propose a nuanced and inclusive definition of genetic discrimination, which reflects its multifaceted impact that should remain relevant in the face of an evolving social context and advancing science. We argue that our definition should be adopted as a guiding academic framework to facilitate scientific and policy discussions about genetic discrimination and support the development of laws and industry policies seeking to address the phenomenon.

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

How do Hispanics/Latinos Perceive and Value the Return of Research Results?

Introduction: Interest in the return of research results has been increasing; however, little is known about how Hispanics/Latinos perceive and value receiving results. This study examined differences among Hispanics/Latinos by education and income in the experience and expectations about the return of research results, perceived value of specific types of information, and the least and most valuable specific information. Method: Retrospective observational design using a cross-sectional national survey sample of Hispanics/Latinos (n = 327). Results: Higher educational attainment was positively associated with the expectation to receive research results, likelihood to participate in research if given study findings, and likelihood to trust researchers if given results. Higher income was positively associated with the perceived value of getting results. Respondents with higher education specifically perceived greater value in information about how lifestyle and genetics affect their risk of disease, how genetics affect how they respond to medications, their ancestry, available clinical trials near them, and how to connect with other study participants. Respondents with higher income perceived greater value in information about how genetics affect their risk of disease and how they respond to medications. Conclusion: The findings offer important insights for planning research initiatives and for developing culturally targeted educational materials for Hispanics/Latinos.

Promoting Inclusive Recruitment: a Qualitative Study of Black Adults' Decision to Participate in Genetic Research

Underrepresentation of Black individuals in genetic research is a longstanding issue. There are well-documented strategies to improve the enrollment of Black participants; however, few studies explore these strategies-as well as the barriers and facilitators for participation-by sampling Black people who have previously participated in genetic research. This study explores the decision-making process of Black adults who have participated in genetic research to identify best practices in the recruitment of Black subjects in genetic research. We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with Black adults with prior research participation in genetic studies housed at an urban academic medical center in the United States of America (USA). An online survey was conducted with the participants to gather demographic data and information on prior research participation. Trust in research was ascertained with the Corbie-Smith Distrust in Clinical Research Index. Two participants scored high levels of distrust using the validated index. Using thematic content analysis, 4 themes emerged from the interviews: (1) Participants are active players in health system, (2) information is power, and transparency is key, (3) therapeutic alliances and study characteristics facilitate participation, and (4) race pervades the research process. The decision to participate in genetic research for the participants in our study was prompted by participants' internal motivations and facilitated by trust in their doctor, trust in the institution, and ease of participation. Most participants viewed their enrollment in genetic research in the context of their own racial identity and the history of medical racism in the USA.

Multisystem Proteinopathy Due to VCP Mutations: A Review of Clinical Heterogeneity and Genetic Diagnosis

In this work, we review clinical features and genetic diagnosis of diseases caused by mutations in the gene encoding valosin-containing protein (VCP/p97), the functionally diverse AAA-ATPase. VCP is crucial to a multitude of cellular functions including protein quality control, stress granule formation and clearance, and genomic integrity functions, among others. Pathogenic mutations in VCP cause multisystem proteinopathy (VCP-MSP), an autosomal dominant, adult-onset disorder causing dysfunction in several tissue types. It can result in complex neurodegenerative conditions including inclusion body myopathy, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or combinations of these. There is also an association with other neurodegenerative phenotypes such as Alzheimer-type dementia and Parkinsonism. Non-neurological presentations include Paget disease of bone and may also include cardiac dysfunction. We provide a detailed discussion of genotype-phenotype correlations, recommendations for genetic diagnosis, and genetic counselling implications of VCP-MSP.

"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 Framework for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Genetics and Genomics Research

IMPORTANCE

Research into the genetic and genomic ("genomics") foundations of disease is central to our understanding of disease prevention, early detection, diagnostic accuracy, and therapeutic intervention. Inequitable participation in genomics research by historically excluded populations limits the ability to translate genomic knowledge to achieve health equity and ensure that findings are generalizable to diverse populations.

OBSERVATIONS

We propose a novel framework for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in genomics research. Building on principles of community-based participatory research and collective impact frameworks, the framework can guide our understanding of the social, cultural, health system, policy, community, and individual contexts in which engagement and genomics research are being done. Our framework highlights the involvement of a multistakeholder team, including the participants and communities to be engaged, to ensure robust methods for recruitment, retention, return of genomic results, quality of engagement, follow-up, and monitoring of participants.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The proposed engagement framework will guide investigators in optimizing equitable representation in research and enhancing the rigor of genomics investigation.

Exploring Rare Disease Patient Attitudes and Beliefs regarding Genetic Testing: Implications for Person-Centered Care

Most rare diseases are genetic in etiology and characterized by a ‘diagnostic odyssey’. Genomic advances have helped speed up the diagnosis for many rare disorders, opening new avenues for precision therapies. Little is known about patient attitudes, experiences, and beliefs about genetic testing for the rare disease congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH). Methods: We conducted six focus groups with patients with CHH (n = 58). Transcripts were coded by independent investigators and validated by external reviewers. Results: Major themes relating to pre-test experiences were ‘attitudes & beliefs’ (most frequently cited theme), which revealed altruism as a strong motivator for pursuing research testing and ‘information and support,’ which revealed a striking lack of pre-testing decisional support/genetic counseling. Major post-test themes included ‘return of results,’ revealing frustration with the lack of return of results and limited emotional support, and ‘family communication,’ describing challenging intrafamilial communication. Themes describing ethical concerns (i.e., privacy, use of samples) were least frequently noted and related to pre- and post-test experiences. Conclusions: Patients with CHH are highly motivated by altruism when pursuing testing but have significant unmet needs for pre-test decisional support and post-test counseling. It is regarded that patient values, beliefs and experiences can inform more person-centered approaches to genetic testing for rare diseases.

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.

Use of Community Listening Sessions to Disseminate Research Findings to Past Participants and Communities

The purpose of this sequential, explanatory mixed methods study is to determine changes in attitudes towards research, trust in medical researchers and the process, and willingness to participate in research among African Americans immediately after receiving past study findings in a community listening session (CLS). We developed and implemented four CLSs with a total of 57 African Americans who were either past research participants or members of the community-at-large. In the quantitative (dominant) phase, 32 participants completed pre-post surveys and 10 of those participants completed the follow-up semi-structured interviews. Paired samples t-tests and McNemar's test determined bivariate differences between pre- and post-surveys. Thematic analyses determined emerging themes to further understand these differences. There was a significant increase in: (1) perceived advantages of clinical trials pretest (M = 26.63, SD = 5.43) and post-test (M = 28.53, SD = 4.24, p < .01); and (2) in trust in medical researchers from pre to post (M = 36.16, SD = 10.40 vs. M = 27.53, SD = 9.37, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pre- and post-tests as it relates to perceived disadvantages of clinical trials and willingness to participate. Qualitative analysis yielded the following themes: (1) sharing research results and the impact on attitudes towards research; (2) community listening sessions: a trust building strategy; and (3) satisfaction with the community listening session. Community listening sessions hold promise as a method that researchers can use to simultaneously disseminate research findings and positively impact research perceptions and potentially participation among racial and ethnic minorities.

Applying an equity lens to pharmacogenetic research and translation to under-represented populations

Since the publication of the Human Genome Project, genetic information has been used as an accepted, evidence-based biomarker to optimize patient care through the delivery of precision health. Pharmacogenetics (PGx) uses information about genes that encode proteins involved in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and hypersensitivity reactions to guide clinical decision making to optimize medication therapy selection. Clinical PGx implementation is growing from the dramatic increase in PGx studies over the last decade. However, an overwhelming lack of genetic diversity in current PGx studies is evident. This lack of diverse representation in PGx studies will impede equitable clinical implementation through potentially inappropriate application of gene-based dosing algorithms, whereas representing a missed opportunity for identification of population specific single nucleotide variants and alleles. In this review, we discuss the challenges of studying PGx in under-represented populations, highlight two successful PGx studies conducted in non-European populations, and propose a path forward through community-based participatory research for equitable PGx research and clinical translation.