Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Genomics Knowledge Scale

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and workplace genetic testing: Knowledge and perceptions of employed adults in the United States

Workplace wellness programs are an emerging avenue for health-related genetic testing, with some large employers now offering such testing to employees. Employees' knowledge and concerns regarding genetic discrimination may impact their decision-making about and uptake of workplace genetic testing (wGT). This study describes employed adults' objective knowledge of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and evaluates how this knowledge correlates with attitudes and beliefs regarding wGT. Analyses utilized data from a large, national web-based survey of employed adults (N = 2000; mean age = 43 years; 51% female; 55.2% college educated). Overall, most respondents (57.3%) said they were unaware of any laws protecting against genetic discrimination. Specifically, 62.6% indicated they were not at all familiar with GINA. The primary study outcome was respondents' score on a 13-item measure assessing knowledge of basic facts about GINA. Participants had low overall GINA knowledge (M = 4.6/13 items correct (35%), SD = 2.9), with employees often presuming GINA offers greater legal protections than it does (e.g., 45.3% erroneously endorsed that GINA protected against discrimination in life insurance). Logistic regression analyses assessed associations between GINA knowledge and employees' demographic characteristics, prior experience with genetic testing, and attitudes regarding wGT. Variables significantly associated with GINA knowledge included higher interest in wGT (aOR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.77), self-reported familiarity with GINA (aOR = 2.02; 95% CI: 1.64, 2.50), and favorable attitudes toward wGT (aOR = 1.92; 95% CI: 1.52, 2.44). Results indicate public knowledge of GINA remains low over 15 years after its passage. These findings highlight the need for employee education on GINA before participating in wGT, as well as broader public education on GINA's legal protections and limitations. Genetic counselors lead GINA education efforts in clinical and public settings and can play a pivotal role in ongoing public education initiatives about GINA.

The biosafety incident response competence scale for clinical nursing staff: a development and validation study

AIMS

This study was designed to develop a biosafety incident response competence scale and evaluate its validity and reliability among clinical nurses.

DESIGN

This study employed a sequential approach, comprising four phases: (1) the establishment of a multidimensional conceptual model, (2) the preliminary selection of the items, (3) further exploration and psychometric testing of the items, (4) the application of the scale among clinical nurses.

METHODS

The biosafety incident response competence conceptual model was developed through literature review and the Delphi method. A total of 1,712 clinical nurses participated in the preliminary items selection, while 1,027 clinical nurses were involved in the further psychometric testing from July 2023 to August 2023. The item analysis, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to evaluate the construct validity. Reliability was measured using Cronbach's alpha, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability, while validity analysis included content validity, structural validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. From September to November 2023, we conducted a survey using the established scale with a total of 4338 valid questionnaires collected. T-test and variance analysis was employed to determine potential variations in biosafety incident response competence based on participants characteristics.

RESULTS

The final scale is composed of 4 factors and 29 items, including monitoring and warning abilities, nursing disposal abilities, biosafety knowledge preparedness, and infection protection abilities. The explanatory variance of the 4 factors was 75.100%. The Cronbach's alpha, split-half reliability and test-retest reliability were 0.974, 0.945 and 0.840 respectively. The Scale-level content validity index was 0.866. The Average Variance Extracted of the 4 factors was larger than 0.5, the Construct Reliability was larger than 0.7, and the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio were less than 0.9. There were significant differences in the scores of response competence among nurses of different ages, working years, titles, positions, departments, marital status and participation in biosafety training (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The biosafety incident response competence scale for nurses exhibits satisfactory reliability and validity, making it a valuable tool for assessing clinical nurses' abilities in responding to biosafety incidents.

Variability in conceptualizations and measurement of genetic literacy

Objective

To examine definitions and measures for genetic literacy in the published literature, and the associations between commonly utilized measures.

Methods

We completed a systematic review searching eight databases for empirical articles containing quantitative measures of genetic literacy. Articles were assessed for study properties, definitions, and measure characteristics. An online survey was then completed by 531 U.S. adults to examine correlations between frequently used genetic literacy measures.

Results

92 articles met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Articles rarely defined genetic literacy, and existing definitions showed inconsistencies in the knowledge and cognitive domains that comprise genetic literacy. Definitions frequently included objective conceptual knowledge, comprehension, and applied knowledge, however most measures only assessed objective or subjective knowledge. Genetic literacy measures were infrequently assessed for psychometric properties and the content domains assessed by measures varied considerably. Correlation analyses showed weak to moderate relationships between genetic literacy measures.

Conclusion

A comprehensive and consistent definition of genetic literacy and its cognitive and conceptual domains should be implemented to inform the development of concordant measurement tools and improve research and clinical care in genetics.

Innovation

We examine and compare definitions and measures of genetic literacy, suggest a more comprehensive definition, and recommendations for research development.

Understanding changes in genetic literacy over time and in genetic research participants

As genomic and personalized medicine becomes mainstream, assessing and understanding the public's genetic literacy is paramount. Because genetic research drives innovation and involves much of the public, it is equally important to assess its impact on genetic literacy. We designed a survey to assess genetic literacy in three ways (familiarity, knowledge, and skills) and distributed it to two distinct samples: 2,050 members of the general population and 2,023 individuals currently enrolled in a large-scale genetic research study. We compared these data to a similar survey implemented in 2013. The results indicate that familiarity with basic genetic terms in 2021 (M = 5.36 [range 1-7], p < 0.001) and knowledge of genetic concepts in 2021 (M = 9.06 [56.6% correct], p = 0.002) are significantly higher compared to 2013 (familiarity: M = 5.08 [range 1-7]; knowledge: M = 8.72 [54.5% correct]). Those currently enrolled in a genetic study were also significantly more familiar with genetic terms (M = 5.79 [range 1-7], p < 0.001) and more knowledgeable of genetic concepts (M = 10.57 [66.1% correct], p < 0.001), and they scored higher in skills (M = 3.57 [59.5% correct], p < 0.001) than the general population (M = 5.36 [range 1-7]; M = 9.06 [56.6% correct]; M = 2.65 [44.2% correct]). The results suggest that genetic literacy is improving over time, with room for improvement. We conclude that educational interventions are needed to ensure familiarity with and comprehension of basic genetic concepts and suggest further exploration of the impact of genetic research participation on genetic literacy to determine mechanisms for potential interventions.