Evidence-based recommendations for delivering the diagnosis of X & Y chromosome multisomies in children, adolescents, and young adults: an integrative review

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of supernumerary X & Y chromosome variations has increased following the implementation of genetic testing in pediatric practice. Empirical evidence suggests that the delivery of the diagnosis has a lasting impact on how affected individuals and their parents perceive and adapt to the diagnosis. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the literature to obtain useful recommendations for delivering a pediatric diagnosis of a sex chromosome multisomy (SCM) based upon a growing body of quantitative and qualitative literature on patient experiences.

METHODS

We conducted an integrative literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL employing keywords "genetic diagnosis delivery," "genetic diagnosis disclosure," "sex chromosome aneuploidy," "Klinefelter syndrome" or ""47, XXY," "Jacob syndrome" or "47, XYY," "Trisomy X," "Triple X" or "47, XXX," and "48 XXYY from January 1, 2000, to October 31, 2023.

RESULTS

Literature supports that patients and parents value the provision of up-to-date information and connection with supportive resources. Discussion of next steps of care, including relevant referrals, prevents perceptions of provider abandonment and commitment to ongoing support. Proactively addressing special concerns such as disclosing the diagnosis to their child, family, and community is also beneficial. Tables are provided for useful information resources, medical specialties that may be required to support patients, and common misconceptions that interfere with accurate information about the diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Patient experiences suggest there should be heightened attention to diagnosis delivery, in reference to the broader ethical and social impacts of a SCM diagnosis. We present recommendations for optimal disclosure of a SCM diagnosis in early and late childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood.

International genetic counseling: What do genetic counselors actually do?

We conducted an exploratory survey of genetic counselors internationally to assess similarities and differences in reported practice activities. Between November 2018 and January 2020 we conducted a mass emailing to an estimated 5600 genetic counselors in different countries and regions. We obtained 189 useable responses representing 22 countries, which are included in an aggregate manner. Data from countries with 10 or more responses, comprising 82% of the total (N = 156), are the primary focus of this report: Australia (13), Canada (26), USA (59), UK (17), France (12), Japan (19) and India (10). Twenty activities were identified as common (≥74%) across these countries, encompassing most subcategories of genetic counseling activity. Activities with most frequent endorsement include: reviewing referrals and medical records and identifying genetic testing options as part of case preparation; taking family and medical histories; performing and sharing risk assessment; and educating clients about basic genetic information, test options, outcomes and implications, including management recommendations on the basis of the test results. Genetic counselors also consistently establish rapport, tailor the educational process, facilitate informed decision making and recognize factors that may impact the counseling interaction. The least endorsed activities were in the Medical History category. Notable differences between countries were observed in the endorsement of 33 activities, primarily in the Contracting and Establishing Rapport, Family History, Medical History, Assessing Patients Psychosocially and Providing Psychosocial Support categories. Generalizations about international practice patterns are limited by the low response rate. However, this study is, to our knowledge, the first to systematically compare the clinical practice and specific activities of genetic counselors working in different countries.

Healthcare and support experiences of adolescents and young adults diagnosed with 47,XXY, 47,XXX, and 48,XXYY

Sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) are among the most common chromosomal conditions. There is little scholarship on how adolescents and young adults (AYAs) affected by SCA engage with and adapt to their diagnosis. In order to understand how AYAs adapt to a SCA diagnosis, we conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews with AYAs. Eight in-depth semi-structured interviews with individuals with a diagnosis of 47,XXY, 47,XXX, and 48,XXYY were analyzed for iterative themes related to adaptation to a SCA diagnosis in accordance with standard qualitative methodology. Our findings suggest that the process of adaptation is highly variable and complex and is mediated by external factors including diagnosis delivery and community support. Factors associated with adaptation include feeling understood and supported by healthcare providers; researching the condition; receiving hormone replacement therapy; and receiving support from a community of peers. As access to prenatal and pediatric genetic testing continues to expand, non-genetic pediatric providers are increasingly likely to interact with individuals with SCAs as part of their initial diagnostic odyssey or ongoing medical management. Understanding the diversity of lived experiences of AYAs with SCAs is helpful for healthcare providers to facilitate holistic care and provide meaningful support to patients.

What are the bottlenecks to health data sharing in Switzerland? An interview study

BACKGROUND

While health data sharing for research purposes is strongly supported in principle, it can be challenging to implement in practice. Little is known about the actual bottlenecks to health data sharing in Switzerland.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to assess the obstacles to Swiss health data sharing, including legal, ethical and logistical bottlenecks.

METHODS

We identified 37 key stakeholders in data sharing via the Swiss Personalised Health Network ecosystem, defined as being an expert on sharing sensitive health data for research purposes at a Swiss university hospital (or a Swiss disease cohort) or being a stakeholder in data sharing at a public or private institution that uses such data. We conducted semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed, translated when necessary, and de-identified. The entire research team discussed the transcripts and notes taken during each interview before an inductive coding process occurred.

RESULTS

Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted (primarily in English) with 17 individuals representing lawyers, data protection officers, ethics committee members, scientists, project managers, bioinformaticians, clinical trials unit members, and biobank stakeholders. Most respondents felt that it was not the actual data transfer that was the bottleneck but rather the processes and systems around it, which were considered time-intensive and confusing. The templates developed by the Swiss Personalised Health Network and the Swiss General Consent process were generally felt to have streamlined processes significantly. However, these logistics and data quality issues remain practical bottlenecks in Swiss health data sharing. Areas of legal uncertainty include privacy laws when sharing data internationally, questions of "who owns the data", inconsistencies created because the Swiss general consent is perceived as being implemented differently across different institutions, and definitions and operationalisation of anonymisation and pseudo-anonymisation. Many participants desired to create a "culture of data sharing" and to recognise that data sharing is a process with many steps, not an event, that requires sustainability efforts and personnel. Some participants also stressed a desire to move away from data sharing and the current privacy focus towards processes that facilitate data access.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitating a data access culture in Switzerland may require legal clarifications, further education about the process and resources to support data sharing, and further investment in sustainable infrastructureby funders and institutions.

How Do Molecular Systems Engineering Scientists Frame the Ethics of Their Research?

BACKGROUND

There are intense discussions about the ethical and societal implications of biomedical engineering, but little data to suggest how scientists think about the ethics of their work. The aim of this study is to describe how scientists frame the ethics of their research, with a focus on the field of molecular systems engineering.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted during 2021-2022, as part of a larger study. This analysis includes a broad question about how participants view ethics as related to their work, with follow up probes about the topics they consider most important. Interviews were transcribed, inductively coded by two researchers to consensus, and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Twenty-four scientists participated in the study. Interviewees hold positions as professors, principal investigators, and senior staff researchers in universities or research institutes in the United States and Europe. Among those scientists who reported reflecting on ethical considerations in their work, many equated ethics with research ethics topics (e.g., safety, replicability), or with regulation and guidelines. Participants expressed the view that ethical issues are primarily relevant for clinical trials of bioengineered products, or for those working with animal or human subjects. Scientists described their research as "too early" or "not examining anything living" with regard to ethical reflection. Finally, many felt that ethics is seen as territory for experts and therefore beyond scientists' competencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular systems engineering scientists currently focus on regulatory aspects as the framework for their ethical analyses. They describe using a framework to define when life arises, as a means to determine when further ethical engagement is warranted. Further research is needed to investigate how scientists relate to the ethics of their scientific work, and build consensus around concepts of life, autonomous behavior, and physiological relevance of bioengineered systems.

Defining critical educational components of informed consent for genetic testing: views of US-based genetic counselors and medical geneticists

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendation (CADRe) framework proposes that key components of informed consent for genetic testing can be covered with a targeted discussion for many conditions rather than a time-intensive traditional genetic counseling approach. We surveyed US genetics professionals (medical geneticists and genetic counselors) on their response to scenarios that proposed core informed consent concepts for clinical genetic testing developed in a prior expert consensus process. The anonymous online survey included responses to 3 (of 6 possible) different clinical scenarios that summarized the application of the core concepts. There was a binary (yes/no) question asking respondents whether they agreed the scenarios included the minimum necessary and critical educational concepts to allow an informed decision. Respondents then provided open-ended feedback on what concepts were missing or could be removed. At least one scenario was completed by 238 respondents. For all but one scenario, over 65% of respondents agreed that the identified concepts portrayed were sufficient for an informed decision; the exome scenario had the lowest agreement (58%). Qualitative analysis of the open-ended comments showed no consistently mentioned concepts to add or remove. The level of agreement with the example scenarios suggests that the minimum critical educational components for pre-test informed consent proposed in our prior work is a reasonable starting place for targeted pre-test discussions. This may be helpful in providing consistency to the clinical practice of both genetics and non-genetics providers, meeting patients' informational needs, tailoring consent for psychosocial support, and in future guideline development.

Ethical Aspects of Pediatric Genetic Care: Testing and Treatment

Pediatric health care providers caring for patients and families with genetic disease will encounter a range of ethical issues. These include traditional pediatric health care issues, such as surrogate decision making and end-of-life care. Genetic testing raises the importance of informed consent for potential risks that move beyond the oft discussed physical risks and into longer term concepts such as psychological impact, privacy and potential discrimination. Predictive testing in childhood also raises questions of whether the child has an autonomy interest in delaying testing until they have decision making capacity to do so on their own. And finally, treatments including gene therapies and gene editing, may raise issues of identity for families dealing with genetic disease.

The right not to know: Non-disclosure of primary genetic test results and genetic counselors' response

As part of clinical genetic counseling practice, patients may request that their primary genetic test results be disclosed to someone else, such as a relative or referring provider, or request that results be disclosed to no one (non-disclosure). In making these requests, patients employ the ethical principle of the "right not to know," which argues that autonomous individuals can choose not to know relevant health information. Although the right not to know has been well-studied in medicine in general, and in the return of genomic secondary findings, we are not aware of other studies that have explored the return of primary genetic test results when patients request non-disclosure or disclosure to another individual. This study aimed to describe common clinical scenarios in which these requests occur, how genetic counselors respond, and what ethical considerations they employ in their decision-making process. We recruited participants from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) "Student Research Surveys and Reminders" listserv and conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 genetic counselors in the United States who described genetic counseling cases where this occurred. Interviews were transcribed and coded inductively, and themes were identified. Case details varied, but in our study data the requests for non-disclosure were most commonly made by patients with poor, often oncologic, prognoses who requested their test results be disclosed to a family member instead of themselves. Genetic counselors considered similar factors in deciding how to respond to these requests: patient autonomy, medical actionability of results for the patient and family, the relationship between the patient and the person to whom results might be disclosed, and legal or practical concerns. Genetic counselors often made decisions on a case-by-case basis, depending on how relevant each of these factors were. This study adds to the growing body of literature regarding patients' "right not to know" and will hopefully provide guidance for genetic counselors who experience this situation in clinical practice.

Exploring prenatal testing preferences among US pregnant individuals: A discrete choice experiment

Although there are numerous benefits to diagnostic prenatal testing, such as fetal exome sequencing, there are also consequences, including the possibility of receiving variants of uncertain significance or identifying secondary findings. In this study, we utilized a survey-based discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of pregnant people in Northern California for hypothetical prenatal genomic tests. Pregnant individuals were invited to complete the survey through advertisements on social media. Five test attributes were studied: likelihood of getting a result, time taken to receive results, who explains results, reporting of uncertain results, and reporting of secondary findings. The survey also gathered information about the participants' demographics, current and past pregnancies, and tolerance of uncertainty using the IUS-12 scale. Participants were eligible if they were female, currently 24 or more weeks pregnant, and able to read/write enough English or Spanish to complete an online survey. Overall, participants (n = 56) preferred the option of having a prenatal test over not having a prenatal test (p < 0.01) and had substantially higher preferences for tests with the highest likelihood of getting a result (p < 0.01). There were also positive preferences for tests that reported secondary findings (p = 0.01) and those where results were returned by a genetic specialist (vs. their prenatal provider) (p = 0.04). These findings can be used to guide conversations between pregnant individuals and genetics specialists, such as genetic counselors, as they weigh the pros and cons of diagnostic prenatal testing options.

Talking Ethics Early in Health Data Public Private Partnerships

Data access and data sharing are vital to advance medicine. A growing number of public private partnerships are set up to facilitate data access and sharing, as private and public actors possess highly complementary health data sets and treatment development resources. However, the priorities and incentives of public and private organizations are frequently in conflict. This has complicated partnerships and sparked public concerns around ethical issues such as trust, justice or privacy-in turn raising an important problem in business and data ethics: how can ethical theory inform the practice of public and private partners to mitigate misaligned incentives, and ensure that they can deliver societally beneficial innovation? In this paper, we report on the development of the Swiss Personalized Health Network's ethical guidelines for health data sharing in public private partnerships. We describe the process of identifying ethical issues and engaging core stakeholders to incorporate their practical reality on these issues. Our report highlights core ethical issues in health data public private partnerships and provides strategies for how to overcome these in the Swiss health data context. By agreeing on and formalizing ethical principles and practices at the beginning of a partnership, partners and society can benefit from a relationship built around a mutual commitment to ethical principles. We present this summary in the hope that it will contribute to the global data sharing dialogue.

Patient experiences with clinical confirmatory genetic testing after using direct-to-consumer raw DNA and third-party genetic interpretation services

The availability of raw DNA and genetic interpretation tools allow individuals to access genetic health risk information, where analytical false-positives exist. Little is known about the experience of individuals who receive pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant(s) through raw DNA interpretation and follow-up with clinical confirmatory genetic testing. This qualitative study set out to describe the experiences of individuals who pursued clinical confirmatory genetic testing, including their perception of the process. Participants were recruited from social media and eligible if they discovered a potential pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a raw DNA interpretation report, completed clinical confirmatory genetic testing in the U.S., and provided documentation of those results. Individuals participated in semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. Of the 12 participants, 3 received clinical genetic testing results that confirmed pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants noted in raw DNA interpretation reports (confirmation positive), and 9 were not confirmed. Nearly all (n = 11) participants described emotional distress and information-seeking behavior as a coping mechanism after discovering a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in raw DNA interpretation. When pursuing confirmatory genetic testing, many (n = 9) faced challenges with finding knowledgeable healthcare providers and obtaining insurance coverage. Despite reporting concerns over raw DNA interpretation and a desire for more safeguards, almost all (n = 10) participants stated interest in using the service again. Overall, participants' experiences reveal they find personal utility in raw DNA interpretation results and provide insight into opportunities for patient and provider education.

Expectations and attitudes towards medical artificial intelligence: A qualitative study in the field of stroke

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform clinical decision-making as we know it. Powered by sophisticated machine learning algorithms, clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can generate unprecedented amounts of predictive information about individuals' health. Yet, despite the potential of these systems to promote proactive decision-making and improve health outcomes, their utility and impact remain poorly understood due to their still rare application in clinical practice. Taking the example of AI-powered CDSS in stroke medicine as a case in point, this paper provides a nuanced account of stroke survivors', family members', and healthcare professionals' expectations and attitudes towards medical AI.

METHODS

We followed a qualitative research design informed by the sociology of expectations, which recognizes the generative role of individuals' expectations in shaping scientific and technological change. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke survivors, family members, and healthcare professionals specialized in stroke based in Germany and Switzerland. Data was analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Based on the participants' deliberations, we identified four presumed roles that medical AI could play in stroke medicine, including an administrative, assistive, advisory, and autonomous role AI. While most participants held positive attitudes towards medical AI and its potential to increase accuracy, speed, and efficiency in medical decision making, they also cautioned that it is not a stand-alone solution and may even lead to new problems. Participants particularly emphasized the importance of relational aspects and raised questions regarding the impact of AI on roles and responsibilities and patients' rights to information and decision-making. These findings shed light on the potential impact of medical AI on professional identities, role perceptions, and the doctor-patient relationship.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the need for a more differentiated approach to identifying and tackling pertinent ethical and legal issues in the context of medical AI. We advocate for stakeholder and public involvement in the development of AI and AI governance to ensure that medical AI offers solutions to the most pressing challenges patients and clinicians face in clinical care.

Perspectives of Rare Disease Social Media Group Participants on Engaging With Genetic Counselors: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Social media provides a potential avenue for genetic counselors to address gaps in access to reliable genetics information for rare disease communities. However, only limited research has examined patient and family attitudes toward engaging with genetic counselors through social media.

OBJECTIVE

Our study assessed the attitudes of members of rare disease social media groups toward engaging with genetic counselors through social media, characteristics associated with greater interest, and the benefits and potential pitfalls of various approaches to such engagement.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods survey of patients and family members recruited from a systematic sample of rare disease Facebook groups. Patient characteristics and their associations with interest in engagement with genetic counselors were evaluated using univariate and bivariate statistics. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 1053 individuals from 103 rare disease groups participated. The median overall interest in engaging with genetic counselors on social media was moderately high at 7.0 (IQR 4.0-9.0, range 0-10). No past experience with a genetic counselor was associated with greater interest in engaging with one through social media (µ=6.5 vs 6.0, P=.04). Participants expressed greatest interest (median 9.0, IQR 5.0-10.0) in engagement models allowing direct communication with genetic counselors, which was corroborated by the majority (n=399, 61.3%) of individuals who responded to open-ended questions explicitly stating their interest in 1-on-1 interactions. When asked what forms of support they would request from genetic counselors through social media, participants desired individualized support and information about how to access services. However, participants also expressed concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and family members in rare disease social media groups appear interested in engaging with genetic counselors through social media, particularly for individualized support. This form of engagement on social media is not meant to replace the current structure and content of genetic counseling (GC) services, but genetic counselors could more actively use social media as a communication tool to address gaps in knowledge and awareness about genetics services and gaps in accessible patient information. Although encouraging, concerns regarding privacy and feasibility require further consideration, pointing to the need for professional guidelines in this area.

Public preferences towards data management and governance in Swiss biobanks: results from a nationwide survey

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to measure the willingness of the Swiss public to participate in personalised health research, and their preferences regarding data management and governance.

SETTING

Results are presented from a nationwide survey of members of the Swiss public.

PARTICIPANTS

15 106 randomly selected Swiss residents received the survey in September 2019. The response rate was 34.1% (n=5156). Respondent age ranged from 18 to 79 years, with fairly uniform spread across sex and age categories between 25 and 64 years.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Willingness to participate in personalised health research and opinions regarding data management and governance.

RESULTS

Most respondents preferred to be contacted and reconsented for each new project using their data (39%, 95% CI: 37.4% to 40.7%), or stated that their preference depends on the project type (29.4%, 95% CI: 27.9% to 31%). Additionally, a majority (52%, 95% CI: 50.3% to 53.8%) preferred their data or samples be stored anonymously or in coded form (43.4%, 95% CI: 41.7% to 45.1%). Of those who preferred that their data be anonymised, most also indicated a wish to be recontacted for each new project (36.8%, 95% CI: 34.5% to 39.2%); however, these preferences are in conflict. Most respondents desired to personally own their data. Finally, most Swiss respondents trust their doctors, along with researchers at universities, to protect their data.

CONCLUSION

Insight into public preference can enable Swiss biobanks and research institutions to create management and governance strategies that match the expectations and preferences of potential participants. Models allowing participants to choose how to interact with the process, while more complex, may increase individual willingness to provide data to biobanks.

Factor's that impact on women's decision-making around prenatal genomic tests: An international discrete choice survey

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a survey-based discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to understand the test features that drive women's preferences for prenatal genomic testing, and explore variation across countries.

METHODS

Five test attributes were identified as being important for decision-making through a literature review, qualitative interviews and quantitative scoring exercise. Twelve scenarios were constructed in which respondents choose between two invasive tests or no test. Women from eight countries who delivered a baby in the previous 24 months completed a DCE presenting these scenarios. Choices were modeled using conditional logit regression analysis.

RESULTS

Surveys from 1239 women (Australia: n = 178; China: n = 179; Denmark: n = 88; Netherlands: n = 177; Singapore: n = 90; Sweden: n = 178; UK: n = 174; USA: n = 175) were analyzed. The key attribute affecting preferences was a test with the highest diagnostic yield (p < 0.01). Women preferred tests with short turnaround times (p < 0.01), and tests reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS; p < 0.01) and secondary findings (SFs; p < 0.01). Several country-specific differences were identified, including time to get a result, who explains the result, and the return of VUS and SFs.

CONCLUSION

Most women want maximum information from prenatal genomic tests, but our findings highlight country-based differences. Global consensus on how to return uncertain results is not necessarily realistic or desirable.

Assessing women’s preferences towards tests that may reveal uncertain results from prenatal genomic testing: Development of attributes for a discrete choice experiment, using a mixed-methods design

Prenatal DNA tests, such as chromosomal microarray analysis or exome sequencing, increase the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis when fetal structural anomalies are identified. However, some parents will receive uncertain results such as variants of uncertain significance and secondary findings. We aimed to develop a set of attributes and associated levels for a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) that will examine parents’ preferences for tests that may reveal uncertain test results. A two phase mixed-methods approach was used to develop attributes for the DCE. In Phase 1, a “long list” of candidate attributes were identified via two approaches: 1) a systematic review of the literature around parental experiences of uncertainty following prenatal testing; 2) 16 semi-structured interviews with parents who had experienced uncertainty during pregnancy and 25 health professionals who return uncertain prenatal results. In Phase 2, a quantitative scoring exercise with parents prioritised the candidate attributes. Clinically appropriate levels for each attribute were then developed. A final set of five attributes and levels were identified: likelihood of getting a result, reporting of variants of uncertain significance, reporting of secondary findings, time taken to receive results, and who tells you about your result. These attributes will be used in an international DCE study to investigate preferences and differences across countries. This research will inform best practice for professionals supporting parents to manage uncertainty in the prenatal setting.

How to deal with uncertainty in prenatal genomics: A systematic review of guidelines and policies

Exome sequencing (ES) enhanced the diagnostic yield of genetic testing, but has also increased the possibility of uncertain findings. Prenatal ES is increasingly being offered after a fetal abnormality is detected through ultrasound. It is important to know how to handle uncertainty in this particularly stressful period. This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of guidelines available for addressing uncertainty related to prenatal chromosomal microarray (CMA) and ES. Ten uncertainty types associated with prenatal ES and CMA were identified and defined by an international multidisciplinary team. Medline (all) and Embase were systematically searched. Laboratory scientists, clinical geneticists, psychologists, and a fetal medicine specialist screened the papers and performed the data extraction. Nineteen papers were included. Recommendations generally emphasized the importance of trio analysis, clinical information, data sharing, validation and re-analysis, protocols, multidisciplinary teams, genetic counselling, whether to limit the possible scope of results, and when to report particular findings. This systematic review helps provide a vocabulary for uncertainties, and a compass to navigate uncertainties. Prenatal CMA and ES guidelines provide a strong starting point for determining how to handle uncertainty. Gaps in guidelines and recommendations were identified and discussed to provide direction for future research and policy making.

"Doctors can read about it, they can know about it, but they've never lived with it": How parents use social media throughout the diagnostic odyssey

Parents of children with undiagnosed conditions struggle to obtain information about how to treat and support their children. It can be particularly challenging to find communities and other parents who share their experiences and can provide emotional and informational support. This study sought to characterize how parents use social media, both throughout the diagnostic odyssey and post-diagnosis, to meet their informational, social, and emotional support needs. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 14 parents from the Stanford site of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN), including five whose children had received a diagnosis through study participation. Interview recordings were analyzed using inductive, team-based coding and thematic analysis based in grounded theory using Dedoose qualitative analysis software. Through this process, we identified four key themes related to social media use. First, parents struggled to find the "right" community, often seeking out groups of similar patients based on symptoms or similar conditions. Second, though they found much valuable information through social media about caring for their child, they also struggled to interpret the relevance of the information to their own child's condition. Third, the social support and access to other patients' and families' lived experiences were described as both highly valued and emotionally challenging, particularly in the case of poor outcomes for similar families. Finally, parents expressed the need to balance concerns about their child's privacy with the value of transparency and data sharing for diagnosis. Our results suggest that the needs and experiences of undiagnosed patients and families differ from those with diagnosed diseases and highlight the need for support in best utilizing social media resources at different stages of the diagnostic odyssey.

Treatment decision-making in sickle cell disease patients

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a blood disorder with few treatment options currently available. However, in recent years, there has been much progress toward developing new therapies and curative treatments to help patients with SCD. Stem cell transplant remains the only approved curative treatment for SCD, but new clinical trials are being initiated using gene therapy and gene editing. We surveyed patients with sickle cell disease (N=9) about attitudes toward stem cell transplant, gene therapy to add a new healthy gene, gene editing to up-regulate fetal hemoglobin, or gene editing to correct the point mutation. The participants read a fact sheet that included objective information on each curative treatment. When asked which curative treatment each participant would choose, all four options were selected at least once. The most highly selected treatment was gene correction gene editing (N=4). Participants generally agreed that the four treatment options are beneficial but were more mixed in their thoughts on whether the options are dangerous. Reasons for selecting a particular curative treatment were variable, but the most selected reasons were perception of a cure (N=4) or decreased severity (N=4), and not needing a donor (N=4). We are at the beginning stages of understanding how patients with SCD make decisions about curative treatments. Currently, patients may be interested in any of the four possibilities for curative treatments, with gene correction gene editing as the most popular choice. Reasons for choosing one treatment over another are mixed.

Physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of proactive genetic screening for disease prevention and early detection is not yet widespread. Professional practice guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) have encouraged reporting pathogenic variants that confer personal risk for actionable monogenic hereditary disorders, but only as secondary findings from exome or genome sequencing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes the potential public health impact of three Tier 1 actionable disorders. Here, we report results of a large multi-center cohort study to determine the yield and potential value of screening healthy individuals for variants associated with a broad range of actionable monogenic disorders, outside the context of secondary findings.

METHODS

Eligible adults were offered a proactive genetic screening test by health care providers in a variety of clinical settings. The screening panel based on next-generation sequencing contained up to 147 genes associated with monogenic disorders within cancer, cardiovascular, and other important clinical areas. Sequence and intragenic copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, pathogenic (low penetrance), or increased risk allele were considered clinically significant and reported. Results were analyzed by clinical area and severity/burden of disease using chi-square tests without Yates' correction.

RESULTS

Among 10,478 unrelated adults screened, 1619 (15.5%) had results indicating personal risk for an actionable monogenic disorder. In contrast, only 3.1 to 5.2% had clinically reportable variants in genes suggested by the ACMG version 2 secondary findings list to be examined during exome or genome sequencing, and 2% had reportable variants related to CDC Tier 1 conditions. Among patients, 649 (6.2%) were positive for a genotype associated with a disease of high severity/burden, including hereditary cancer syndromes, cardiovascular disorders, or malignant hyperthermia susceptibility.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first real-world examples of specialists and primary care providers using genetic screening with a multi-gene panel to identify health risks in their patients. Nearly one in six individuals screened for variants associated with actionable monogenic disorders had clinically significant results. These findings provide a foundation for further studies to assess the role of genetic screening as part of regular medical care.

U.S. Genetic counselors' perceptions of inpatient genetic counseling: A valuable model for medically complex patients

Some genetic counselors (GCs) provide care in the inpatient setting. However, there is little literature on inpatient genetic counseling. The purpose of our study was to describe GC's experiences with the provision of genetic counseling services within inpatient care settings. Participants were recruited from respondents to a quantitative survey study on inpatient genetic counseling, which recruited GCs via the National Society of Genetic Counselors forum. GCs seeing at least five inpatients per year were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interview guide explored how and why their inpatient genetic counseling service started, workflow, and the perceived impact of the service. Interviews were transcribed, inductive analysis was used to develop a codebook, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Twenty-one inpatient genetic counselors participated in the study. Many participants worked primarily in outpatient roles with some inpatient duties (61.9%), while the rest worked primarily in inpatient roles (38.1%). Most participants have provided inpatient care for <2 years (66.7%). Many participants were involved in inpatient care across multiple specialties (66.7%), most frequently, pediatrics, neonatology, and neurology. Three themes were identified: (a) The convenience of inpatient genetic counseling leads to increased access to appropriate genetics care for medically complex patients and their inpatient healthcare providers, (b) the inpatient genetic counseling process and workflow is not standard and has multiple moving parts, and (c) genetic counselors are fulfilled by the diverse and unique opportunities of the inpatient care setting despite the emotional intensity of this environment. Participants described their inpatient care as valuable because it increases access to genetics services and adds genetics expertise to multidisciplinary inpatient teams. Overall, participants perceive inpatient genetic counseling as a way to bring genetics care directly to patients at a critical time point in their care, which benefits medically complex patients and their multidisciplinary inpatient team.

Application of a framework to guide genetic testing communication across clinical indications

Background

Genetic information is increasingly relevant across healthcare. Traditional genetic counseling (GC) may limit access to genetic information and may be more information and support than some individuals need. We report on the application and clinical implications of a framework to consistently integrate genetics expertise where it is most useful to patients.

Methods

The Clinical Genome Resource’s (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) workgroup designed rubrics to guide pre- and post-genetic test communication. Using a standard set of testing indications, pre- and post-test rubrics were applied to 40 genetic conditions or testing modalities with diverse features, including variability in levels of penetrance, clinical actionability, and evidence supporting a gene-disease relationship. Final communication recommendations were reached by group consensus.

Results

Communication recommendations were determined for 478 unique condition-indication or testing-indication pairs. For half of the conditions and indications (238/478), targeted discussions (moderate communication depth) were the recommended starting communication level for pre- and post-test conversations. Traditional GC was recommended pre-test for adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions for individuals with no personal history and post-test for most conditions when genetic testing revealed a molecular diagnosis as these situations are likely higher in complexity and uncertainty. A brief communication approach was recommended for more straightforward conditions and indications (e.g., familial hypercholesterolemia; familial variant testing).

Conclusions

The CADRe recommendations provide guidance for clinicians in determining the depth of pre- and post-test communication, strategically aligning the anticipated needs of patients with the starting communication approach. Shorter targeted discussions or brief communications are suggested for many tests and indications. Longer traditional GC consultations would be reserved for patients with more complex and uncertain situations where detailed information, education, and psychological support can be most beneficial. Future studies of the CADRe communication framework will be essential for determining if CADRe-informed care supports quality patient experience while improving access to genetic information across healthcare.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-021-00887-x.

"I wish that there was more info": characterizing the uncertainty experienced by carriers of pathogenic ATM and/or CHEK2 variants

Little is known about what uncertainties patients experience after being identified to carry a pathogenic variant in a moderate-risk cancer gene as a result of undergoing multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility. Data regarding cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of risk management strategies for these variants continues to evolve, which has the potential to evoke uncertainty. Acknowledging uncertainty during pre- and post-test discussions is imperative to helping individuals to adapt to their results. A better understanding of this population's experience of uncertainty is needed to facilitate such discussions and is the aim of the current study. Semi-structured interviews (30-60 min in length), informed by Han and colleagues' taxonomy of uncertainty in clinical genomic sequencing, were conducted to assess motivations to pursue genetic testing, areas of perceived uncertainty, and strategies for managing uncertainty among 20 carriers of pathogenic variants in two moderate-risk genes, ATM and CHEK2. We found that participants pursue genetic testing with the expectation that results will clarify cancer risks and approaches to management. Participants experience uncertainties aligning with Han's taxonomy relating to the ambiguity of specific cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of certain risk management strategies. These uncertainties influenced decisions around the uptake of risk management strategies, which were additionally impacted by clinicians' uncertainty towards such strategies. Participants employ a variety of uncertainty management approaches to cope with their anxieties. Clinicians may wish to use these findings to facilitate patient adaptation to the implications of multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility during both pre- and post-test counseling sessions.

Public willingness to participate in personalized health research and biobanking: A large-scale Swiss survey

This paper reports survey findings on the Swiss public's willingness, attitudes, and concerns regarding personalized health research participation by providing health information and biological material. The survey reached a sample of 15,106 Swiss residents, from which we received 5,156 responses (34.1% response rate). The majority of respondents were aware of research using human biological samples (71.0%) and held a positive opinion towards this type of research (62.4%). Of all respondents, 53.6% indicated that they would be willing to participate in a personalized health research project. Willingness to participate was higher in younger, higher educated, non-religious respondents with a background in the health sector. Respondents were more willing to provide 'traditional' types of health data, such as health questionnaires, blood or biological samples, as opposed to social media or app-related data. All respondents valued the return of individual research results, including risk for diseases for which no treatment is available. Our findings highlight that alongside general positive attitudes towards personalized health research using data and samples, respondents have concerns about data privacy and re-use. Concerns included potential discrimination, confidentiality breaches, and misuse of data for commercial or marketing purposes. The findings of this large-scale survey can inform Swiss research institutions and assist policymakers with adjusting practices and developing policies to better meet the needs and preferences of the public. Efforts in this direction could focus on research initiatives engaging in transparent communication, education, and engagement activities, to increase public understanding and insight into data sharing activities, and ultimately strengthen personalized health research efforts.

Dealing with uncertain results from chromosomal microarray and exome sequencing in the prenatal setting: An international cross-sectional study with healthcare professionals

Objectives

To conduct qualitative interviews with healthcare providers working in different countries to understand their experiences of dealing with uncertain results from prenatal chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES).

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews with 31 healthcare providers who report or return prenatal CMA and/or ES results (clinicians, genetic counsellors and clinical scientists) in six countries with differing healthcare systems; Australia (4), Denmark (5), Netherlands (6), Singapore (4), Sweden (6) and United Kingdom (6). The topic guide explored the main sources of uncertainty and their management.

Results

There was variation in reporting practices both between and across countries for variants of uncertain significance, however, there was broad agreement on reporting practices for incidental findings. There was also variation in who decides what results are reported (clinical scientists or clinicians). Technical limitations and lack of knowledge (to classify variants and of prenatal phenotypes) were significant challenges, as were turnaround times and lack of guidelines.

Conclusion

Health professionals around the globe are dealing with similar sources of uncertainty, but managing them in different ways, Continued dialogue with international colleagues on ways of managing uncertain results is important to compare and contrast the benefits and limitations of the different approaches.

What's already known about this topic?

Chromosome microarray analysis and exome sequencing have increased diagnostic yield over karyotyping but have increased the incidence of uncertain results.

What does this study add?

Our findings highlight variation in reporting practices both between and across countries for variants of uncertain significance, although there is broad agreement on reporting practices for incidental findings.

International guidelines may help to standardise how we define and categorise variants, however, global uniformity on the management of uncertain results may not be a realistic or desirable goal.

Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

Informed Consent in the Genomics Era

Informed consent, the process of gathering autonomous authorization for a medical intervention or medical research participation, is a fundamental component of medical practice. Medical informed consent assumes decision-making capacity, voluntariness, comprehension, and adequate information. The increasing use of genetic testing, particularly genomic sequencing, in clinical and research settings has presented many new challenges for clinicians and researchers when obtaining informed consent. Many of these challenges revolve around the need for patient comprehension of sufficient information. Genomic sequencing is complex-all of the possible results are too numerous to explain, and many of the risks and benefits remain unknown. Thus, historical standards of consent are difficult to apply. Alternative models of consent have been proposed to increase patient understanding, and several have empirically demonstrated effectiveness. However, there is still a striking lack of consensus in the genetics community about what constitutes informed consent in the context of genomic sequencing. Multiple approaches are needed to address this challenge, including consensus building around standards, targeted use of genetic counselors in nongenetics clinics in which genomic testing is ordered, and the development and testing of alternative models for obtaining informed consent.

Attitudes Toward Hypothetical Uses of Gene-Editing Technologies in Parents of People with Autosomal Aneuploidies

Researchers are exploring the use of gene-editing technologies to prevent and/or treat genetic conditions in humans. Stakeholder views, including those of patient and family populations, are important in the ongoing bioethical discussion. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with parents of people with trisomy 21 (T21; N = 10), trisomy 18 (T18; N = 8), and trisomy 13 (T13; N = 9)-conditions not previously studied in regard to attitudes toward hypothetical gene editing. While many discussions focus on the morality of gene editing, parents in our study focused on quality of life and concerns about changing their children's identity. All participants prioritized ameliorating life-threatening health issues when those were present; many also emphasized increasing their children's communication and cognitive ability. These results suggest that patient populations with the lived experience of genetic conditions have unique concerns that may differ from broader discourse.

Attitudes of Members of Genetics Professional Societies Toward Human Gene Editing

Gene-editing technologies have improved in ease, efficiency, and precision. Although discussions are occurring around acceptable uses of human gene editing, limited data exist on the views of genetics-trained individuals. In 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to assess the attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward gene editing (N = 500). Virtually all respondents were supportive of somatic editing in basic-science (99.2%) and clinical (87.4%) research on nonreproductive human cells. Only 57.2% were supportive of germline-editing basic-science research; 31.9% supported the transfer of viable embryos to humans for clinical research. While most favored future therapeutic uses of somatic (96.6%) and germline (77.8%) editing, there was little support for enhancement in somatic (13.0%) or germline (8.6%) cells. This study describes attitudes toward gene editing from genetics professionals worldwide and contributes to ongoing discourse and policy guidance in this domain.

Parental experiences of uncertainty following an abnormal fetal anomaly scan: Insights using Han's taxonomy of uncertainty

For a number of prospective parents, uncertainty during pregnancy starts when an anomaly is found during a routine fetal anomaly scan. This may be followed by numerous tests to determine the etiology and nature of the anomaly. In this study, we aimed to understand how prospective parents perceive and manage uncertainty after being confronted with a structural anomaly during their routine ultrasound. Han's taxonomy of uncertainty was used as a framework to identify and understand the different types of uncertainty experienced. Interviews were held in the UK (n = 8 women and n = 1 male partner) and in the Netherlands (n = 7 women) with participants who had experienced uncertainty in their pregnancy after a fetal scan. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, and the uncertainties experienced by parents were mapped against the dimensions of the Han taxonomy (sources, issues, and locus). Participants' experience of uncertainty was relevant to all dimensions and subcategories of the Han taxonomy, showing its applicability in the prenatal setting. Sources of uncertainty included receiving probabilistic or ambiguous information about the anomaly, or information that was complex and challenging to understand. Issues of uncertainty included were those that were scientific—such as a probable diagnosis with no further information, personal—such as the emotional impact of uncertainty, and practical—such as limited information about medical procedures and practical aspects of care. Additionally, participants described what helped them to manage uncertainty. This included active coping strategies such as searching for information on the Internet, external coping resources such as seeking social support, and internal coping resources such as using positivity and hope. Several recommendations for the healthcare professional to minimize uncertainty and help the patient deal with uncertainty have been proposed based on these findings.

Clinical Genetics Lacks Standard Definitions and Protocols for the Collection and Use of Diversity Measures

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

Perspectives of Sickle Cell Disease Stakeholders on Heritable Genome Editing

Advances in CRISPR technology and the announcement of the first gene-edited babies have sparked a global dialogue about the future of heritable genome editing (HGE). There has been an international call for public input to inform a substantive debate about benefits and risks of HGE. This study investigates the views of the sickle cell disease (SCD) community. We utilized a mixed-methods approach to examine SCD stakeholders' views in the United States. We found SCD stakeholders hold a nuanced view of HGE. Assuming the technology is shown to be safe and effective, they are just as supportive of HGE as genetics professionals, but more supportive than the general public. However, they are also concerned about the potential implications of HGE, despite this support. As discourse surrounding HGE advances, it is crucial to engage disease communities and other key stakeholders whose lives could be altered by these interventions.

The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues

Gene-editing techniques have progressed rapidly in the past 5 years. There are already ongoing human somatic gene-editing clinical trials for multiple diseases. And there has been one purported scenario of human germline gene editing in late 2018. In this paper, we will review the current state of the technology, discuss the ethical and social issues that surround the various forms of gene editing, as well as review emerging stakeholder data from professionals, the ‘general public’ and individuals and families dealing with genetic diseases potentially treatable by gene editing.

Attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions toward gene editing technology

Background

The views of people with genetic conditions are crucial to include in public dialogue around developing gene editing technologies. This qualitative study sought to characterize the attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions (retinitis pigmentosa [RP] and Leber congenital amaurosis [LCA]) toward gene editing.

Methods

Individuals with RP (N = 9) and LCA (N = 8) participated in semi‐structured qualitative interviews about their experience with and attitudes toward blindness, and their views about gene editing technology for somatic, germline, and enhancement applications.

Results

Participants saw potential benefits from gene editing in general, but views about its use for retinal conditions varied and were influenced by personal perspectives on blindness. Those who felt more negatively toward blindness, particularly those with later onset blindness, were more supportive of gene editing for retinal conditions. Concerns about both germline and somatic editing included: the importance of informed consent; impacts of gene editing on social attitudes and barriers affecting blind people; and worries about “eliminating” blindness or other traits.

Conclusion

People with RP and LCA have diverse attitudes toward gene editing technology informed by their own lived experience with disability, and many have concerns about how the ways in which it is discussed and implemented might affect them.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

A genetic counseling needs assessment of Mexico

BACKGROUND

While genetic counseling has expanded globally, Mexico has not adopted it as a separate profession. Given the rapid expansion of genetic and genomic services, understanding the current genetic counseling landscape in Mexico is crucial to improving healthcare outcomes.

METHODS

Our needs assessment strategy has two components. First, we gathered quantitative data about genetics education and medical geneticists' geographic distribution through an exhaustive compilation of available information across several medical schools and public databases. Second, we conducted semi-structured interviews of 19 key-informants from 10 Mexican states remotely with digital recording and transcription.

RESULTS

Across 32 states, ~54% of enrolled medical students receive no medical genetics training, and only Mexico City averages at least one medical geneticist per 100,000 people. Barriers to genetic counseling services include: geographic distribution of medical geneticists, lack of access to diagnostic tools, patient health literacy and cultural beliefs, and education in medical genetics/genetic counseling. Participants reported generally positive attitudes towards a genetic counseling profession; concerns regarding a current shortage of available jobs for medical geneticists persisted.

CONCLUSION

To create a foundation that can support a genetic counseling profession in Mexico, the clinical significance of medical genetics must be promoted nationwide. Potential approaches include: requiring medical genetics coursework, developing community genetics services, and increasing jobs for medical geneticists.

Developing a genomics rotation: Practical training around variant interpretation for genetic counseling students

With the wide adoption of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based genetic tests, genetic counselors require increased familiarity with NGS technology, variant interpretation concepts, and variant assessment tools. The use of exome and genome sequencing in clinical care has expanded the reach and diversity of genetic testing. Regardless of the setting where genetic counselors are performing variant interpretation or reporting, most of them have learned these skills from colleagues, while on the job. Though traditional, lecture-based learning around these topics is important, there has been growing need for the inclusion of case-based, experiential training of genomics and variant interpretation for genetic counseling students, with the goal of creating a strong foundation in variant interpretation for new genetic counselors, regardless of what area of practice they enter. To address this need, we established a genomics and variant interpretation rotation for Stanford's genetic counseling training program. In response to changes in the genomics landscape, this has now evolved into three unique rotation experiences, each focused on variant interpretation in the context of various genomic settings, including clinical laboratory, research laboratory, and healthy genomic analysis studies. Here, we describe the goals and learning objectives that we have developed for these variant interpretation rotations, and illustrate how these concepts are applied in practice.

Much ado about nothing: A qualitative study of the experiences of an average-risk population receiving results of exome sequencing

The increasing availability of exome sequencing to the general ("healthy") population raises questions about the implications of genomic testing for individuals without suspected Mendelian diseases. Little is known about this population's motivations for undergoing exome sequencing, their expectations, reactions, and perceptions of utility. In order to address these questions, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 participants recruited from a longitudinal multi-omics profiling study that included exome sequencing. Participants were interviewed after receiving exome results, which included Mendelian disease-associated pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants, pharmacogenetic variants, and risk assessments for multifactorial diseases such as type 2 diabetes. The primary motivation driving participation in exome sequencing was personal curiosity. While they reported feeling validation and relief, participants were frequently underwhelmed by the results and described having expected more from exome sequencing. All participants reported discussing the results with at least some family, friends, and healthcare providers. Participants' recollection of the results returned to them was sometimes incorrect or incomplete, in many cases aligning with their perceptions of their health risks when entering the study. These results underscore the need for different genetic counseling approaches for generally healthy patients undergoing exome sequencing, in particular the need to provide anticipatory guidance to moderate participants' expectations. They also provide a preview of potential challenges clinicians may face as genomic sequencing continues to scale-up in the general population despite a lack of full understanding of its impact.

Challenges of infertility genetic counseling: Impact on counselors' personal and professional lives

Infertility genetic counselors (GCs) work with patients struggling to become pregnant who desire genetic testing of embryos and preconception genetic testing or carrier screening. Because personal and professional challenges have not been examined in this relatively new genetic counseling specialty, we investigated the difficulties infertility GCs face in their professional roles. Past and present infertility GCs in patient-facing roles were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Purposive sampling ensured participants were diverse in clinical setting, reproductive history, and other demographics. Nineteen participants completed a semi-structured interview, at which time data saturation occurred. Thematic analysis revealed infertility GCs consider their patients more emotionally stressed than patients in other specialties. Infertility GCs relate easily to patients, build long-term patient relationships, and feel invested in the reproductive successes of patients. Participants reported heightened concern for their own fertility, leading to high personal uptake of preconception genetic and fertility tests. Participants described discomfort when counseling while visibly pregnant and reluctance to disclose their own reproductive histories. Further research is needed on the complex interactions of GCs' personal and professional lives. Peer support groups and professional dialogue about the personal effects of the role may be beneficial for infertility GCs.

The Global State of the Genetic Counseling Profession

The profession of genetic counseling (also called genetic counselling in many countries) began nearly 50 years ago in the United States, and has grown internationally in the past 30 years. While there have been many papers describing the profession of genetic counseling in individual countries or regions, data remains incomplete and has been published in diverse journals with limited access. As a result of the 2016 Transnational Alliance of Genetic Counseling (TAGC) conference in Barcelona, Spain, and the 2017 World Congress of Genetic Counselling in the UK, we endeavor to describe as fully as possible the global state of genetic counseling as a profession. We estimate that in 2018 there are nearly 7000 genetic counselors with the profession established or developing in no less than 28 countries.

Genetic Counselors' and Genetic Counseling Students' Implicit and Explicit Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Members of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community experience significant health disparities. Widespread preferences for heterosexual over homosexual people among healthcare providers are believed to contribute to this inequity, making recognition (and ultimately reduction) of healthcare providers' sexual prejudices of import. The present study sought to characterize North American genetic counselors' and genetic counseling students' implicit and explicit attitudes toward homosexuality. During January 2017, 575 participants completed a Web-based survey and Sexuality Implicit Association Test (SIAT). A majority of participants (60.2%) harbored implicit preferences for heterosexual over homosexual people. Mean implicit attitude score (0.24) indicated a slight automatic preference for heterosexual over homosexual people, while mean explicit attitude score (0.033) indicated no preference for either group. Although participants' implicit and explicit attitudes were positively correlated (p < 0.001), there was greater implicit bias for heterosexual over homosexual people than suggested by explicit attitude scores (p < 0.001). Implicit attitudes differed across self-reported sexual orientation (p < 0.001), but not across gender, race, or genetic counseling specialty. Education has been demonstrated to be moderately effective at reducing sexual prejudices, and almost all participants (95.8%) indicated that they would support the implementation of genetic counseling curricula addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues. The study's combined findings suggest that North American genetic counselors and genetic counseling students support, and may benefit from, the implementation of genetic counseling curricula addressing LGBT issues.