Barriers and Strategies Related to Qualitative Research on Genetic Ancestry Testing in Indigenous Communities

Genetic research within Indigenous communities: Engagement opportunities and pathways forward

PURPOSE

Against a historical backdrop of researchers who violated trust through lack of benefit sharing, transparency, and engagement, efforts are underway to develop better approaches for genetic and genomic research with Indigenous communities. To increase engagement, there is a need to understand factors that affect researcher and community collaborations. This study aimed to understand the barriers, challenges, and facilitators of Indigenous Peoples in the United States participating in genetic research.

METHODS

We conducted 42 semistructured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members across the United States to explore perceived risks, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of genetic research participation.

RESULTS

Participants, identifying as Indigenous (88%) or non-Indigenous allies (12%), described their concerns, hesitancy, and fears about genetic research, as well as the roles of trust, transparency, and respect for culture in facilitating partnerships. Previous harms-such as sample and data misuse, stigmatization, or misrepresentation by researchers-revealed strategies for building trust to create more equitable and reciprocal research partnerships.

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study offered strategies for increasing genetic research engagement. The pathway forward should foster transparent research policies and practices to facilitate informed research that supports the needs and priorities of participants, communities, and researchers.

The Inclusion of Underrepresented Populations in Cardiovascular Genetics and Epidemiology

Novel genetic risk markers have helped us to advance the field of cardiovascular epidemiology and refine our current understanding and risk stratification paradigms. The discovery and analysis of variants can help us to tailor prognostication and management. However, populations underrepresented in cardiovascular epidemiology and cardiogenetics research may experience inequities in care if prediction tools are not applicable to them clinically. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to outline the barriers that underrepresented populations can face in participating in genetics research, to describe the current efforts to diversify cardiogenetics research, and to outline strategies that researchers in cardiovascular epidemiology can implement to include underrepresented populations. Mistrust, a lack of diverse research teams, the improper use of sensitive biodata, and the constraints of genetic analyses are all barriers for including diverse populations in genetics studies. The current work is beginning to address the paucity of ethnically diverse genetics research and has already begun to shed light on the potential benefits of including underrepresented and diverse populations. Reducing barriers for individuals, utilizing community-driven research processes, adopting novel recruitment strategies, and pushing for organizational support for diverse genetics research are key steps that clinicians and researchers can take to develop equitable risk stratification tools and improve patient care.

Adapting a conceptual framework to engage diverse stakeholders in genomic/precision medicine research

Introduction

Genomic/precision medicine offers a remarkable opportunity to improve health and address health disparities. Genomic medicine is the study of genes and their interaction with health. Precision medicine is an approach to disease prevention and treatment that considers individual variability in genes, environment and lifestyle. Conclusions from studies lacking diversity may hinder generalizability as genomic variation occurs within and between populations. Historical factors, such as medical mistrust, ethical issues related to decision making, and data sharing pose complex challenges that may further widen inequities in genomic/precision medicine if not appropriately addressed. Although few biomedical studies integrate priorities of community partners into their conceptual framework, effective implementation of genomic/precision medicine research calls for the involvement of diverse stakeholders to expand traditional unidirectional models of engagement in clinical research towards authentic bidirectional collaboration.

Methods

A multipronged approach was used integrating an evidence‐based literature review and best practices in developing and evaluating the engagement of diverse stakeholders in genomic and precision medicine research. This was combined with expert consensus building to adapt a conceptual model from a community engagement framework to addressing genomics to be scalable to engagement science, which is challenging to genomic/precision medicine research.

Results

The final enhanced conceptual framework is composed of four overarching dimensions now inclusive of domains in trust, exploitation, discrimination, privacy risk, stigmatization, prior harms/injustices, failure to recognize coexisting governments, intersectionality and research transformation. This conceptual framework proposes effective participant research engagement strategies for upstream relationship building, distinct from downstream recruitment strategies in which the goal is enrolment.

Conclusion

To further shape the evolution of genomic/precision medicine research, it is important to leverage existing partnerships, engage participants beyond recruitment and embrace diverse perspectives.

Patient or Public Contribution

In preparation of this manuscript, the perspectives of the community partners on the impact of engaging in genomic/precision medicine research beyond research participation were integrated into this conceptual framework from various guided listening sessions held in diverse communities.

Strategies for culturally safe research with Native American communities: An integrative review

Background:

A history of unethical research and deficit-based paradigms have contributed to profound mistrust of research among Native Americans, serving as an important call to action. Lack of cultural safety in research with Native Americans limits integration of cultural and contextual knowledge that is valuable for understanding challenges and making progress toward sustainable change.

Aim:

To identify strategies for promoting cultural safety, accountability, and sustainability in research with Native American communities.

Method:

Using an integrative review approach, three distinct processes were carried out: (1) appraisal of peer-reviewed literature (Scopus, PubMed, and ProQuest), (2) review of grey literature (e.g. policy documents and guidelines), and (3) synthesis of recommendations for promoting cultural safety.

Results:

A total of 378 articles were screened for inclusion, with 55 peer-reviewed and grey literature articles extracted for full review. Recommendations from included articles were synthesised into strategies aligned with eight thematic areas for improving cultural safety in research with Native American communities.

Conclusions:

Research aiming to understand, respect, and acknowledge tribal sovereignty, address historical trauma, and endorse Indigenous methods is essential. Culturally appropriate, community-based and -engaged research collaborations with Native American communities can signal a reparative effort, re-establish trust, and inform pragmatic solutions. Rigorous research led by Native American people is critical to address common and complex health challenges faced by Native American communities.

Impact statement:

Respect and rigorous methods ensure cultural safety, accountability, and sustainability in research with Native Americans.

Perspectives on Precision Medicine in a Tribally Managed Primary Care Setting

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine (PM) research and clinical application is moving forward at a rapid pace. To ensure ethical inclusion of all populations in PM, in-depth understanding of diverse communities' views of PM research and PM implementation is necessary.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore perspectives on PM in a tribally managed healthcare organization. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data from 46 interviews.

RESULTS

Participants described gains in diagnostic efficiency, risk identification for preventable disease, and the advancement of population-specific biomedical research as key benefits of PM. Concerns expressed related to privacy risks associated with data-sharing, overpromising on PM, and managing patient expectations related to PM. Stakeholders encouraged PM implementation to be preceded by health education activities that leverage a range of communication strategies.

CONCLUSION

Perspectives described in this study may aid in and should be considered prior to implementation of PM in this and other healthcare systems, especially those serving diverse populations.

Impacts of personal DNA ancestry testing

Consumer uptake of direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA ancestry testing is accelerating, yet few empirical studies have examined test impacts on recipients despite the DTC ancestry industry being two decades old. Participants in a longitudinal cohort study of response to health-related DTC genomic testing also received personal DNA ancestry testing at no additional cost. Baseline survey data from the primary study were analyzed together with responses to an additional follow-up survey focused on the response to ancestry results. Ancestry results were generated for 3466 individuals. Of those, 1317 accessed their results, and 322 individuals completed an ancestry response survey, in other words, approximately one in ten who received ancestry testing responded to the survey. Self-reported race/ethnicity was predictive of those most likely to view their results. While 46% of survey responders (N = 147) reported their ancestry results as surprising or unexpected, less than 1% (N = 3) were distressed by them. Importantly, however, 21% (N = 67) reported that their results reshaped their personal identity. Most (81%; N = 260) planned to share results with family, and 12% (N = 39) intended to share results with a healthcare provider. Many (61%; N = 196) reported test benefits (e.g., health insights), while 12% (N = 38) reported negative aspects (e.g., lack of utility). Over half (N = 162) reported being more likely to have other genetic tests in the future. DNA ancestry testing affected individuals with respect to personal identity, intentions to share genetic information with family and healthcare providers, and the likelihood to engage with other genetic tests in the future. These findings have implications for medical care and research, specifically, provider readiness to engage with genetic ancestry information.

Indigenous Genomic Databases: Pragmatic Considerations and Cultural Contexts

The potential to grow genomic knowledge and harness the subsequent clinical benefits has escalated the building of background variant databases (BVDs) for genetic diagnosis across the globe. Alongside the upsurge of this precision medicine, potential benefits have been highlighted for both rare genetic conditions and other diagnoses. However, with the ever-present “genomic divide,” Indigenous peoples globally have valid concerns as they endure comparatively greater health disparities but stand to benefit the least from these novel scientific discoveries and progress in healthcare. The paucity of Indigenous healthcare providers and researchers in these fields contributes to this genomic divide both in access to, and availability of culturally safe, relevant and respectful healthcare using this genetic knowledge. The vital quest to provide equitable clinical research, and provision and use of genomic services and technologies provides a strong rationale for building BVDs for Indigenous peoples. Such tools would ground their representation and participation in accompanying genomic health research and benefit acquisition. We describe two, independent but highly similar initiatives–the “Silent Genomes” in Canada and the “Aotearoa Variome” in New Zealand–as exemplars that have had to address the aforementioned issues and work to create Indigenous BVDs with these populations. Taking into account the baseline inequities in genomic medicine for Indigenous populations and the ongoing challenges of implementing genomic research with Indigenous communities, we provide a rationale for multiple changes required that will assure communities represented in BVDs, as well as Indigenous researchers, that their participation will maximize benefits and minimize risk.

"We Don't Need a Swab in Our Mouth to Prove Who We Are": Identity, Resistance, and Adaptation of Genetic Ancestry Testing among Native American Communities

Genetic ancestry testing (GAT) provides a specific type of knowledge about ancestry not previously available to the general public, prompting questions about the conditions whereby genetic articulations of ancestry present opportunities to forge new identities and social ties but also new challenges to the maintenance of existing social structures and cultural identities. The opportunities and challenges posed by GAT are particularly significant for many indigenous communities-whose histories are shaped by traumatic interactions with colonial powers and Western science-and for whom new applications of GAT may undermine or usurp long-standing community values, systems of governance, and forms of relationality. We conducted 13 focus groups with 128 participants and six in-depth, semistructured interviews with a variety of community leaders examining the perceptions of GAT within indigenous communities across Oklahoma. Our interviews and focus groups suggest that participants-through the articulation of indigeneity as experiential and relational in nature and inherently distinct from genetic notions of ancestry-resist much of the challenge presented by GAT in usurping traditional forms of identity while at the same time recognizing the utility of the technology for tracing unknown ancestry and identifying health risks in the community.