Preferences for the Return of Individual Results From Research on Pediatric Biobank Samples

Adolescents' and Parents' Perspectives on a Novel Decision-Making Process for Return of Results in Genomic Research

To understand whether they found a two-step decision process helpful and why, adolescent-parent dyads participating in a study investigating return of genomic testing results were asked about their decision-making experience. Responses were qualitatively coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Adolescents and parents found both joint and independent decision-making stages helpful. Regarding independent decision-making, adolescents appreciated exercising independence, while parents valued both adolescent and parental independence. Joint decision-making allowed each to hear the other's viewpoints. Some found joint decision-making irrelevant but recognized it might help others. Overall, adolescents and parents had similar reasons for finding the two-step decision-making process helpful. Our findings support using such a process for engaging parents and adolescents in challenging research and clinical decisions.

Parents' decision-making regarding whether to receive adult-onset only genetic findings for their children: Findings from the BabySeq Project

PURPOSE

Most professional guidelines recommend against genetic screening for adult-onset only (AO) conditions until adulthood, yet others argue that there may be benefit to disclosing such results. We explored parents' decision-making on this issue in the BabySeq Project, a clinical trial of newborn genomic sequencing.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with parents (N = 24) who were given the option to receive actionable AO results for their children. Interviews explored parents' motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO genetic disease risk information, their decision-making process, and their suggestions for supporting parents in making this decision.

RESULTS

Parents noted several motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO results. Most commonly, parents cited early intervention/surveillance (n = 11), implications for family health (n = 7), and the ability to prepare (n = 6) as motivations to receive these results. The most common reasons to decline were protection of the child's future autonomy (n = 4), negative effect on parenting (n = 3), and anxiety about future disease (n = 3). Parents identified a number of ways to support parents in making this decision.

CONCLUSION

Results show considerations to better support parental decision-making that aligns with their values when offering AO genetic information because it is more commonly integrated into pediatric clinical care.

Returning study results to research participants: Data access, format, and sharing preferences

INTRODUCTION

Research participants have a growing expectation for transparency with their collected information; however, there is little guidance on participant preferences for receiving health information and how researchers should return this information to participants.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 502 participants in the United States. Participants were asked about their preferences for receiving, sharing, and the formatting of health information collected for research purposes.

RESULTS

Most participants wanted their health information returned (84 %) to use it for their own knowledge and to manage their own health. Email was the most preferred format for receiving health data (67 %), followed by online website (44 %), and/or paper copy (32 %). Data format preferences varied by age, education, financial resources, subjective numeracy, and health literacy. Around one third of Generation Z (25 %), Millennials (30 %), and Generation X (29 %) participants preferred to receive their health information with a mobile app. In contrast, very few Baby Boomers (12 %) and none from the Silent Generation preferred the mobile app format. Having a paper copy of the data was preferred by 38 % of participants without a college degree compared to those with a college degree. Preferences were highest for sharing all health information with doctors and nurses (77 %), and some information with friends and family (66 %).

CONCLUSION

Study findings support returning research information to participants in multiple formats, including email, online websites, and paper copy. Preferences for whom to share information with varied by stakeholders and by sociodemographic characteristics. Researchers should offer multiple formats to participants and tailor data sharing options to participants' preferences. Future research should further explore combinations of individual characteristics that may further influence data sharing and format preferences.

Dynamic consent, communication and return of results in large-scale health data reuse: Survey of public preferences

Dynamic consent forms a comprehensive, tailored approach for interacting with research participants. We conducted a survey study to inquire how research participants evaluate the elements of consent, information provision, communication and return of results within dynamic consent in a hypothetical health data reuse scenario. We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patient panel members. Data were analysed using descriptive and nonparametric inferential statistics. Respondents favoured the potential to manage changing consent preferences over time. There was much agreement between people favouring closer and more specific control over data reuse approval and those in favour of broader approval, facilitated by an opt-out system or an independent data reuse committee. People want to receive more information about reuse, outcomes and return of results. Respondents supported an interactive model of research participation, welcoming regular, diverse and interactive forms of communication, like a digital communication platform. Approval for reuse and providing meaningful information, including meaningful return of results, are intricately related to facilitating better communication. Respondents favoured return of actionable research results. These findings emphasize the potential of dynamic consent for enabling participants to maintain control over how their data are being used for which purposes by whom. Allowing different options to shape a dynamic consent interface in health data reuse in a personalized manner is pivotal to accommodate plurality in a flexible though robust manner. Interaction via dynamic consent enables participants to tailor the elements of participation they deem relevant to their own preferences, engaging diverse perspectives, interests and preferences.

Parental Preferences about Policy Options Regarding Disclosure of Incidental Genetic Findings in Newborn Screening: Using Videos and the Internet to Educate and Obtain Input

Our objective was to develop and test a new approach to obtaining parental policy guidance about disclosure of incidental findings of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis (CF), including heterozygote carrier status and the conditions known as CFTR-related metabolic syndrome (CRMS) and/or cystic fibrosis screen positive inconclusive diagnosis, CFSPID. The participants were parents of infants up to 6 months old recruited from maternity hospitals/clinics, parent education classes and stores selling baby products. Data were collected using an anonymous, one-time Internet-based survey. The survey introduced two scenarios using novel, animated videos. Parents were asked to rank three potential disclosure policies-Fully Informed, Parents Decide, and Withholding Information. Regarding disclosure of information about Mild X (analogous to CRMS/CFSPID), 57% of respondents ranked Parents Decide as their top choice, while another 41% ranked the Fully Informed policy first. Similarly, when considering disclosure of information about Disease X (CF) carrier status, 50% and 43% gave top rankings to the Fully Informed and Parents Decide policies, respectively. Less than 8% ranked the Withholding Information policy first in either scenario. Data from value comparisons suggested that parents believed knowing everything was very important even if they became distressed. Likewise, parents preferred autonomy even if they became distressed. However, when there might not be enough time to learn everything, parents showed a slight preference for deferring decision-making. Because most parents strongly preferred the policies of full disclosure or making the decision, rather than the withholding option for NBS results, these results can inform disclosure policies in NBS programs, especially as next-generation sequencing increases incidental findings.

Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape

Biobanks play a central role in pediatric translational research, which deals primarily with genetic data from sample-based research. However, participation of children in biobanking has received only limited attention in the literature, even though research in general and in clinical trials in particular have a long history in involving minors. So, we resolved to explore specific challenging ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI) in the current pediatric biobanking landscape to propose a way forward for biobanking with children as partners in research. Methodologically, we first established the accessibility and utilization of pediatric biobanks, mainly in Europe. This was supported by a literature review related to children's participation, taking into account not only academic papers but also relevant guidelines and best-practices. Our findings are discussed under five themes: general vulnerability; ethical issues-balancing risks and benefits, right to an open future, return of results including secondary findings; legal issues-capacity and legal majority; societal issues-public awareness and empowerment; and responsible research with children. Ultimately, we observed an on-going shift from the parents'/guardians' consent being a sine-qua-non condition to the positive minor's agreement: confirming that the minor is the participant, not the parent(s)/guardian(s). This ethical rethinking is paving the way toward age-appropriate, dynamic and participatory models of involving minors in decision-making. However, we identified a requirement for dynamic tools to assess maturity, a lack of co-produced engagement tools and paucity of shared best practices. We highlight the need to provide empowerment and capability settings to support researchers and biobankers, and back this with practical examples. In conclusion, equipping children and adults with appropriate tools, and ensuring children's participation is at the forefront of responsible pediatric biobanking, is an ethical obligation, and a cornerstone for research integrity.

Sharing and Safeguarding Pediatric Data

Data sharing is key to advancing our understanding of human health and well-being. While issues related to pediatric research warrant strong ethical protections, overly protectionist policies may serve to exclude minors from data sharing initiatives. Pediatric data sharing is critical to scientific research concerning health and well-being, to say nothing of understanding human development generally. For example, large-scale pediatric longitudinal studies, such as those in the DREAM-BIG Consortium, on the influence of prenatal adversity factors on child psychopathology, will provide prevention data and generate future health benefits. Recent initiatives have formulated sound policy to help enable and foster data sharing practices for pediatric research. To help translate these policy initiatives into practice, we discuss how model consent clauses for pediatric research can help address some of the issues and challenges of pediatric data sharing, while enabling data sharing.

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.

Participants' Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana

The feedback of individual results of genomics research is an ethical issue. However, which genetic results African participants would like to receive and why, remains unclear. A qualitative study was conducted to collect data from 44 adolescents and 49 parents/caregivers of adolescents enrolled in a genomic study in Botswana. Almost all the participants wanted to receive genetic results. Parents and caregivers wanted to receive results across all categories of genetic conditions discussed in the study, while adolescents were reluctant to receive results for severe, non-preventable, and unactionable conditions. Participants expressed different reasons for wanting feedback of results, including for awareness, improving lifestyle, accepting one' situation, and preparing for the future. Our findings also reveal that participants' context, relations, and empowerment are important to consider in interpreting their preferences for feedback of results.

Should Feedback of Individual Results be Integrated into the Consent Process in African Genomics? Participants' Views from an HIV-TB Genomics Research Project in Botswana

BACKGROUND

Whilst informed consent is a key component of considering whether individual genomic research results could or should be fed back to research participants, little is known about the views of African research participants on its role.

METHODS

We carried out a qualitative study to explore views of adolescents and parents or caregivers regarding informed consent for feedback of individual results from a genomics research project in Botswana. We conducted 24 deliberative focus group discussions with 93 participants (44 adolescents and 49 parents or caregivers) and 12 in-depth interviews (6 adolescents and 6 parents).

RESULTS

Our findings revealed that most participants would like to be informed about the possibility of discovering individual genetic results during the consent process and that consent be obtained for feedback during the enrollment process. They further expressed that in cases where prior consent to feedback was not obtained, then participants should be re-contacted where life-saving genetic information is discovered. Participants emphasized the need for researchers to ensure that participants' decisions regarding feedback of results are well-informed. Autonomy, transparency, and communication were identified as key values to uphold during the consent process.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, obtaining participants' consent for feedback of results is important to ensure that their rights and wellbeing are protected in research. This is critical in building trust relationships between participants and researchers.

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.

Reflections on dynamic consent in biomedical research: the story so far

Dynamic consent (DC) was originally developed in response to challenges to the informed consent process presented by participants agreeing to 'future research' in biobanking. In the past 12 years, it has been trialled in a number of different projects, and examined as a new approach for consent and to support patient engagement over time. There have been significant societal shifts during this time, namely in our reliance on digital tools and the use of social media, as well as a greater appreciation of the integral role of patients in biomedical research. This paper reflects on the development of DC to understand its importance in an age where digital health is becoming the norm and patients require greater oversight and control of how their data may be used in a range of settings. As well as looking back, it looks forwards to consider how DC could be further utilised to enhance the patient experience and address some of the inequalities caused by the digital divide in society.

Differences in cancer patients' and clinicians' preferences for disclosure of uncertain genomic tumor testing results

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinicians' and patients' preferences for disclosure of genomic tumor testing (GTT) results; to determine the sensitivity of these disclosure preferences to uncertainty about the actionability of results; and to explore factors associated with disclosure preferences.

METHODS

Community-based oncology clinicians (n = 94) and patients (n = 1121) were surveyed about their preferences for disclosing GTT results with varying levels of uncertainty (Tiers 1, 2, 3). Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were used to compare clinicians' and patients' disclosure preferences and their sensitivity to uncertainty, and to explore associations between disclosure preferences and sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors.

RESULTS

Relatively more patients than clinicians preferred disclosure, and their preferences were less sensitive to the uncertainty of GTT results. For patients and clinicians, lower uncertainty sensitivity was associated with positive GTT attitudes; for patients it was also associated with greater uncertainty tolerance and knowledge of uncertainty in GTT.

CONCLUSION

Relatively more cancer patients than clinicians prefer disclosure of GTT results, and their preferences are less sensitive to result uncertainty. Uncertainty sensitivity in disclosure preferences is associated with GTT-related attitudes and uncertainty tolerance.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Differences in cancer patients' and clinicians' preferences for disclosure of uncertain GTT results warrant greater attention in cancer care.

Factors Influencing Participation in Biospecimen Research among Parents of Youth with Mental Health Conditions

INTRODUCTION

Biospecimens are tools that have the potential to improve early identification and treatment for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and bipolar disorders (BPD). Unfortunately, most biobanks lack racial/ethnic diversity. One challenge to including a diverse sample of youth is recruiting and engaging families.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to better understand facilitators and barriers to participation in biospecimen research among a diverse group of parents of youth with ASD and BPD.

METHODS

The current study involved 3 Mental Health Research Network sites. At each site, parents participated in an interview that explored attitudes and beliefs about genetic research. Interviews were audio-recorded, and audio files were transcribed and coded using content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 58 interviews were conducted. Four challenges emerged: (1) contacting and engaging potential research participants, (2) motivating potential participants to read recruitment and consent materials, (3) motivating participation in research, in general, and (4) motivating participation in research involving biospecimen donation, specifically.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants were eager to participate as long as the research process involved trust, clarity, and flexibility. Future research involving youth with mental health conditions would benefit from implementing multimodal strategies for recruitment and data collection and sharing knowledge gained by the research with study participants.

A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing to Multigene Panel Testing in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients

BACKGROUND

As DNA sequencing costs decline, genetic testing options have expanded. Whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (WGS) are entering clinical use, posing questions about their incremental value compared with disease-specific multigene panels that have been the cornerstone of genetic testing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-one patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who had undergone targeted hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genetic testing (either multigene panel or familial variant test) were recruited into the MedSeq Project, a clinical trial of WGS. Results from panel genetic testing and WGS were compared. In 20 of 41 participants, panel genetic testing identified variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or uncertain significance. WGS identified 19 of these 20 variants, but the variant detection algorithm missed a pathogenic 18 bp duplication in myosin binding protein C (MYBPC3) because of low coverage. In 3 individuals, WGS identified variants in genes implicated in cardiomyopathy but not included in prior panel testing: a pathogenic protein tyrosine phosphatase, non-receptor type 11 (PTPN11) variant and variants of uncertain significance in integrin-linked kinase (ILK) and filamin-C (FLNC). WGS also identified 84 secondary findings (mean=2 per person, range=0-6), which mostly defined carrier status for recessive conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

WGS detected nearly all variants identified on panel testing, provided 1 new diagnostic finding, and allowed interrogation of posited disease genes. Several variants of uncertain clinical use and numerous secondary genetic findings were also identified. Whereas panel testing and WGS provided similar diagnostic yield, WGS offers the advantage of reanalysis over time to incorporate advances in knowledge, but requires expertise in genomic interpretation to appropriately incorporate WGS into clinical care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01736566.

Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences

Opportunities to participate in genomic sequencing studies, as well as recommendations to screen for variants in 59 medically actionable genes anytime clinical genomic sequencing is performed, indicate adolescents will increasingly be involved in decisions about learning secondary findings from genome sequencing. However, how adolescents want to be involved in such decisions is unknown. We conducted five focus groups with adolescents (2) and parents (3) to learn their decisional preferences about return of genomic research results to adolescents. Discussions about decisional preferences centered around three themes: feelings about receiving genomic risk information, adolescent involvement and capacity to participate in decision-making, and recommendations for parental versus collaborative decision-making. We address the contested space between parental duties to act in their children's best interests when choosing which results to return and adolescents' desires to make autonomous decisions. A collaborative decision-making approach is recommended for obtaining consent from adolescents and their parents for genome sequencing research.

Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer

Purpose

Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing.

Materials and Methods

BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing.

Results

Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene.

Conclusion

Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.

Considering the Benefits and Risks of Research Participants' Access to Sequence Data

The use of sequencing technologies has greatly expanded in both research and clinical settings. The generation of voluminous datasets has raised several issues regarding data sharing and access. Current regulations require clinical laboratories and some research laboratories to provide access to test data, including sequencing data, directly to patients upon request. There is some controversy over whether this access right may be somewhat broader, encompassing research data as well-a question beyond the scope of this article. It is clear that in the research setting, deposition of sequencing data into public or private databases often occurs, although little information exists about the return of data files to research participants (in contrast to the extensive deliberations regarding return of results). Thus, further consideration of the issue of access to data files is warranted as well as more effort to understand both patients' and research participants' use of the data.

A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing to Multigene Panel Testing in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients

BACKGROUND

As DNA sequencing costs decline, genetic testing options have expanded. Whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (WGS) are entering clinical use, posing questions about their incremental value compared with disease-specific multigene panels that have been the cornerstone of genetic testing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-one patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who had undergone targeted hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genetic testing (either multigene panel or familial variant test) were recruited into the MedSeq Project, a clinical trial of WGS. Results from panel genetic testing and WGS were compared. In 20 of 41 participants, panel genetic testing identified variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or uncertain significance. WGS identified 19 of these 20 variants, but the variant detection algorithm missed a pathogenic 18 bp duplication in myosin binding protein C (MYBPC3) because of low coverage. In 3 individuals, WGS identified variants in genes implicated in cardiomyopathy but not included in prior panel testing: a pathogenic protein tyrosine phosphatase, non-receptor type 11 (PTPN11) variant and variants of uncertain significance in integrin-linked kinase (ILK) and filamin-C (FLNC). WGS also identified 84 secondary findings (mean=2 per person, range=0-6), which mostly defined carrier status for recessive conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

WGS detected nearly all variants identified on panel testing, provided 1 new diagnostic finding, and allowed interrogation of posited disease genes. Several variants of uncertain clinical use and numerous secondary genetic findings were also identified. Whereas panel testing and WGS provided similar diagnostic yield, WGS offers the advantage of reanalysis over time to incorporate advances in knowledge, but requires expertise in genomic interpretation to appropriately incorporate WGS into clinical care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01736566.