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.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Patients With Cancer and Immigration Background

PURPOSE

Studies have shown that patients with cancer are more likely to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) than noncancer patients for symptom relief and hope. We aimed to evaluate factors of race, ethnic groups, and immigration status in attitude of patients with cancer in seeking out CAM.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective questionnaire study where information on demographics, cancer information, race/ethnicity, immigration duration, and psychosocial factors was correlated with the CAM use in a community cancer center located in the borough of Brooklyn, at New York City.

RESULTS

Among 658 patients, the prevalence of CAM use was 66.11%. CAM use was 71.98% in females and 54.34% in males (P = .113 × 10-4). Patients of African descent had higher CAM use (72.73%) than the White patients (63.53%; P = .0371). There was no difference of CAM use between the US born (68.77%) and the immigrants (63.98%, P = .199) as a whole; however, comparing with the US born (66.50%), Asian-born immigrants had lower CAM use (53.77%, P = .0161), whereas Latin-American born had a numerical trend toward higher CAM use (74.83%, P = .0608). The number of years of living in the United States was not associated with more CAM use. Prayer and spirituality was the most common CAM subtype used (25.91%). There was no difference in CAM use in the respective non-White ethnic groups whether they were US born or non-US born.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of patients with cancer enriched with immigration background, CAM use was the highest in African American patients. The use of CAM in the non-White patients was associated with their ethnic background, regardless whether they were US born or not. Cultural roots appeared to be a strong influencing factor for the usage of CAM.