Assessing the implications of positive genomic screening results

Age-Based Genomic Screening during Childhood: Ethical and Practical Considerations in Public Health Genomics Implementation

Genomic sequencing offers an unprecedented opportunity to detect inherited variants that are implicated in rare Mendelian disorders, yet there are many challenges to overcome before this technology can routinely be applied in the healthy population. The age-based genomic screening (ABGS) approach is a novel alternative to genome-scale sequencing at birth that aims to provide highly actionable genetic information to parents over the course of their child's routine health care. ABGS utilizes an established metric to identify conditions with high clinical actionability and incorporates information about the age of onset and age of intervention to determine the optimal time to screen for any given condition. Ongoing partnerships with parents and providers are instrumental to the co-creation of educational resources and strategies to address potential implementation barriers. Implementation science frameworks and informative empirical data are used to evaluate strategies to establish this unique clinical application of targeted genomic sequencing. Ultimately, a pilot project conducted in primary care pediatrics clinics will assess patient and implementation outcomes, parent and provider perspectives, and the feasibility of ABGS. A validated, stakeholder-informed, and practical ABGS program will include hundreds of conditions that are actionable during infancy and childhood, setting the stage for a longitudinal implementation that can assess clinical and health economic outcomes.

The good, the bad, and the utilitarian: attitudes towards genetic testing and implications for disability

The present study focused on the link between the attitudes towards genetic testing and views on selective reproduction choices following genetic testing. First, we explored the potential demographical (age, gender, number of children, relationship status) and personal factors (perceived morality, religiosity, parenting intentions, instrumental harm) underlying these attitudes using a specific moral psychology approach, i.e., the two-dimension model of utilitarianism (i.e., instrumental harm and impartial beneficence). Next, we investigated participants' hypothetical reproduction choices depending on the future child's potential future condition, assessed through genetic screening. Our sample consisted of 1627 Romanian adults aged 17 to 70 (M = 24.46). Results indicated that one's perceived morality was the strongest predictor of positive attitudes towards genetic testing, and instrumental harm was the strongest predictor of negative attitudes. Also, more religious individuals with more children had more moral concerns related to genetic testing. Participants considered Down syndrome as the condition that parents (others than themselves) should most take into account when deciding to have children (35%), followed by progressive muscular dystrophy (29.1%) and major depressive disorder (29%). When expressing their choices for their future children (i.e., pregnancy termination decisions), participants' knowledge about potential deafness in their children generated the most frequent (37.7%) definitive termination decisions (i.e., "definitely yes" answers), followed by schizophrenia (35.8%), and major depressive disorder (35.2%). Finally, we discuss our results concerning their practical implications for disability and prenatal screening ethical controversies.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences with Population Genetic Testing Offered Through a Primary Care Network

Aims: To explore patient experiences in a large-scale primary care-based, preemptive genetic testing program.

Methods: Patients who received genetic results from the initiative were invited to participate in an online survey 3 weeks postresult disclosure. A 6-month follow-up survey was sent to assess changes over time.

Results: The initial survey was completed by 1646 patients, with 544 completing the 6-month follow-up survey. The following outcomes were high overall: patient-reported understanding of results (cancer: 87%; cardiac: 86%); perceived utility (75%); positive emotions (relieved: 66.8%; happy: 62.0%); family result sharing (67.6%); and satisfaction (87%), although analysis by demographic factors identified groups who may benefit from additional education and emotional support. Results-related health behaviors and discussions with providers increased over time (screening procedures 6.1% to 14.2% p < 0.001; provider discussion 10.3% to 25.3%, p < 0.001), and were more likely to take place for patients with positive cancer and/or cardiac results (39.8% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Forty-seven percent of patients reported insurance discrimination concerns, and most (79.4%) were not familiar with privacy and nondiscrimination laws. Concerns regarding discrimination and negative emotions decreased between the two survey time points (privacy issues 44.6% to 35.1% p < 0.001; life insurance discrimination concerns 35.5% to 29.6%, p = 0.001; anxiety 8.1% to 3.3%, p < 0.001; and uncertainty 19.8% to 12.8%, p < 0.001). These findings led to the development and integration of additional patient resources to improve program implementation.

Conclusion: Our findings highlight patient experiences with and areas of need in a community-based genomic screening pilot initiative using a mixed primary care/genetics provider model to deliver precision medicine.

In-vivo design feedback and perceived utility of a genetically-informed smoking risk tool among current smokers in the community

Background

The use of genetically-informed personalized risk information for behavioral disorders, namely smoking and smoking-related behaviors, is a promising yet understudied area. The Genetics and Smoking Risk Profile, or RiskProfile, leverages genetic and environmental information to communicate one’s risk for smoking-related diseases. Although prior studies have examined attitudes toward genetic results, little research has investigated these perceptions through a lens of in-vivo testing; that is, user-centered design feedback in response to personalized genetic results being returned contemporaneously. This qualitative study engaged current smokers in usability testing of the RiskProfile within the context of concurrently receiving this personalized, genetically-informed smoking cessation intervention.

Methods

Eighty-nine participants who were current smokers responded to open-ended interview questions on perceptions of smoking-related genetic information and the content and format of the RiskProfile intervention that they had received moments before. Data were analyzed via the conventional content analysis approach in which themes were allowed to emerge throughout the analysis.

Results

Participants were able to reference and offer design input on specific elements of the RiskProfile. Overall, current smokers perceived the RiskProfile to have high potential utility. Constructive feedback that current smokers offered about the tool centered around suggested improvements to optimize its usability and technical content.

Conclusions

The detailed and constructive feedback from participants highlights that in-vivo feedback offers a useful design approach that addresses concerns of rigor and relevance when returning genetic results. This unique method demonstrated perceived utility and constructive design feedback for the RiskProfile among current smokers and can play an important role in optimizing the design and implementation of personalized genetic risk interventions moving forward.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12920-021-00976-1.