Engaged genomic science produces better and fairer outcomes: an engagement framework for engaging and involving participants, patients and publics in genomics research and healthcare implementation

Genetic Screening-Emerging Issues

In many countries, some form of genetic screening is offered to all or part of the population, either in the form of well-organized screening programs or in a less formalized way. Screening can be offered at different phases of life, such as preconception, prenatal, neonatal and later in life. Screening should only be offered if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Technical innovations in testing and treatment are driving changes in the field of prenatal and neonatal screening, where many jurisdictions have organized population-based screening programs. As a result, a greater number and wider range of conditions are being added to the programs, which can benefit couples' reproductive autonomy (preconception and prenatal screening) and improve early diagnosis to prevent irreversible health damage in children (neonatal screening) and in adults (cancer and cascade screening). While many developments in screening are technology-driven, citizens may also express a demand for innovation in screening, as was the case with non-invasive prenatal testing. Relatively new emerging issues for genetic screening, especially if testing is performed using DNA sequencing, relate to organization, data storage and interpretation, benefit-harm ratio and distributive justice, information provision and follow-up, all connected to acceptability in current healthcare systems.

Ethics of 'Counting Me In': framing the implications of direct-to-patient genomics research

Count Me In (CMI) was launched in 2015 as a patient-driven research initiative aimed at accelerating the study of cancer genomics through direct participant engagement, electronic consent and open-access data sharing. It is an example of a large-scale direct-to-patient (DTP) research project which has since enrolled thousands of individuals. Within the broad scope of 'citizen science', DTP genomics research is defined here as a specific form of 'top-down' research endeavour developed and overseen by institutions within the traditional human subjects research context; in novel ways, it engages and recruits patients with defined diseases, consents them for medical information and biospecimens sharing, and stores and disseminates genomic information. Importantly, these projects simultaneously aim to empower participants in the research process while increasing sample size, particularly in rare disease states. Using CMI as a case study, this paper discusses how DTP genomics research raises new questions in the context of traditional human subjects research ethics, including issues surrounding participant selection, remote consent, privacy and return of results. It aims to demonstrate how current research ethics frameworks may be insufficient in this context, and that institutions, institutional review boards and investigators should be aware of these gaps and their role in ensuring the conduct of ethical, novel forms of research together with participants. Ultimately, a broader question is raised of whether the rhetoric of participatory genomics research advocates for an ethic of personal and social duty for contributing to the advancement of generalisable knowledge about health and disease.

Extending an Antiracism Lens to the Implementation of Precision Public Health Interventions

Precision public health holds promise to improve disease prevention and health promotion strategies, allowing the right intervention to be delivered to the right population at the right time. Growing concerns underscore the potential for precision-based approaches to exacerbate health disparities by relying on biased data inputs and recapitulating existing access inequities. To achieve its full potential, precision public health must focus on addressing social and structural drivers of health and prominently incorporate equity-related concerns, particularly with respect to race and ethnicity. In this article, we discuss how an antiracism lens could be applied to reduce health disparities and health inequities through equity-informed research, implementation, and evaluation of precision public health interventions. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(11):1210-1218. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307386).

Conceptualizing fairness in the secondary use of health data for research: A scoping review

With the introduction of the European Health Data Space (EHDS), the secondary use of health data for research purposes is attracting more attention. Secondary health data processing promises to address novel research questions, inform the design of future research and improve healthcare delivery generally. To comply with the existing data protection regulations, the secondary data use must be fair, among other things. However, there is no clear understanding of what fairness means in the context of secondary use of health data for scientific research purposes. In response, we conducted a scoping review of argument-based literature to explore how fairness in the secondary use of health data has been conceptualized. A total of 35 publications were included in the final synthesis after abstract and full-text screening. Using an inductive approach and a thematic analysis, our review has revealed that balancing individual and public interests, reducing power asymmetries, setting conditions for commercial involvement, and implementing benefit sharing are essential to guarantee fair secondary use research. The findings of this review can inform current and future research practices and policy development to adequately address concerns about fairness in the secondary use of health data.

The legacy of language: What we say, and what people hear, when we talk about genomics

The way we "talk" about genetics plays a vital role in whether public audiences feel at ease in having conversations about it. Our research explored whether there was any difference between "what we say" and "what people hear" when providing information about genetics to community groups who are known to be missing from genomics datasets. We conducted 16 focus groups with 100 members of the British public who had limited familiarity with genomics and self-identified as belonging to communities with Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani ancestry as well as people of various ancestral heritage who came from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Participants were presented with spoken messages explaining genomics and their responses to these were analyzed. Results indicated that starting conversations that framed genomics through its potential benefits were met with cynicism and skepticism. Participants cited historical and present injustices as reasons for this as well as mistrust of private companies and the government. Instead, more productive conversations led with an acknowledgment that some people have questions-and valid concerns-about genomics, before introducing any of the details about the science. To diversify genomic datasets, we need to linguistically meet public audiences where they are at. Our research has demonstrated that everyday talk about genomics, used by researchers and clinicians alike, is received differently than it is likely intended. We may inadvertently be further disengaging the very audiences that diversity programs aim to reach.

Testing a deliberative democracy method with citizens of African ancestry to weigh pros and cons of targeted screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk

Background

Democratic deliberation (DD), a strategy to foster co-learning among researchers and communities, could be applied to gain informed public input on health policies relating to genomic translation.

Purpose

We evaluated the quality of DD for gaining informed community perspectives regarding targeting communities of African Ancestry (AAn) for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) screening in Georgia.

Methods

We audiotaped a 2.5 day conference conducted via zoom in March 2021 to examine indicators of deliberation quality based on three principles: (1) inclusivity (diverse viewpoints based on participants' demographics, cancer history, and civic engagement), (2) consideration of factual information (balanced and unbiased expert testimonies, participant perceived helpfulness), and (3) deliberation (speaking opportunities, adoption of a societal perspective on the issue, reasoned justification of ideas, and participant satisfaction).

Results

We recruited 24 participants who reflected the diversity of views and life experiences of citizens of AAn living in Georgia. The expert testimony development process we undertook for creating balanced factual information was endorsed by experts' feedback. Deliberation process evaluation showed that while participation varied (average number of statements = 24, range: 3-62), all participants contributed. Participants were able to apply expert information and take a societal perspective to deliberate on the pros and cons of targeting individuals of AAn for HBOC screening in Georgia.

Conclusions

The rigorous process of public engagement using deliberative democracy approach can successfully engage a citizenry with diverse and well-informed views, do so in a relatively short time frame and yield perspectives based on high quality discussion.

Will the European Health Data Space change data sharing rules?

Questions of consent and public interest research loom large.