Dataset Information

Australians' views on personal genomic testing: focus group findings from the Genioz study.

ABSTRACT: Personal genomic testing provides healthy individuals with access to information about their genetic makeup for purposes including ancestry, paternity, sporting ability and health. Such tests are available commercially and globally, with accessibility expected to continue to grow, including in Australia; yet little is known of the views/expectations of Australians. Focus groups were conducted within a multi-stage, cross-disciplinary project (Genioz) to explore this. In mid-2015, 56 members of the public participated in seven focus groups, allocated into three age groups: 18-24, 25-49, and ≥50 years. Three researchers coded transcripts independently and generated themes. Awareness of personal genomic testing was low, but most could deduce what "personal genomics" might entail. Very few had heard of the term "direct-to-consumer" testing, which has implications for organisations developing information to support individuals in their decision-making. Participants' understanding of genetics was varied and drawn from several sources. There were diverse perceptions of the relative influence of genetics and environment on health, mental health, behavior, talent, or personality. Views about having a personal genomic test were mixed, with greater interest in health-related tests if they believed there was a reason for doing so. However, many expressed scepticisms about the types of tests available, and how the information might be used; concerns were also raised about privacy and the potential for discrimination. These exploratory findings inform subsequent stages of the Genioz study, thereby contributing to strategies of supporting Australians to understand and make meaningful and well-considered decisions about the benefits, harms, and implications of personal genomic tests.

SUBMITTER: Metcalfe SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6057916 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are increasingly being conducted to efficiently generate evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Despite their growing acceptance, PCTs may involve a variety of ethical issues, including the management of pragmatic clinical trial-collateral findings (PCT-CFs), that is, information that emerges in PCTs that is unrelated to the primary research questions but may have implications for patients, clinicians, and health systems.ObjectiveWe sought to understand patients' views about PCT-CF disclosure, including how, by whom, and the nature and extent of information provided.DesignProspective, qualitative focus group study.ParticipantsFocus groups were conducted in Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX; and Seattle, WA (overall N = 66), during July and August 2019.ApproachAll groups discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the detection of a PCT-CF of contraindicated medications. Participants were asked about their reactions to the PCT-CF and issues related to its disclosure.Key resultsReactions to learning about the PCT-CF were mixed, ranging from fear of a significant health problem, anger that the contraindicated medications had gone unnoticed and/or for being included in research without their permission, to gratitude for the information. Preferences for how such disclosures are made varied but were driven by several consistent desires, namely minimizing patient harm and anxiety and demonstrating trust and respect. Many wanted their treating clinician to be informed of the PCT-CF so that they would be prepared to answer patients' questions and to discuss treatment options.ConclusionsThe detection of PCT-CFs is likely to increase with further expansion of PCTs. As such, clinicians will undoubtedly become involved in the management of PCT-CFs. Our data illustrate some of the challenges clinicians may face when their patients are informed of a PCT-CF and the need to develop guidance for disclosing PCT-CFs in ways that align with patients' preferences and values.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough researchers are giving increased attention to blockchain-based personal health records (PHRs) and data sharing, the majority of research focuses on technical design. Very little is known about health care consumers' intentions to adopt the applications.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the intentions and concerns of health care consumers regarding the adoption of blockchain-based personal health records and data sharing.MethodsThree focus groups were conducted, in which 26 participants were shown a prototype of a user interface for a self-sovereign blockchain-based PHR system (ie, a system in which the individual owns, has custody of, and controls access to their personal health information) to be used for privacy and secure health data sharing. A microinterlocutor analysis of focus group transcriptions was performed to show a descriptive overview of participant responses. NVivo 12.0 was used to code the categories of the responses.ResultsParticipants did not exhibit a substantial increase in their willingness to become owners of health data and share the data with third parties after the blockchain solution was introduced. Participants were concerned about the risks of losing private keys, the resulting difficulty in accessing care, and the irrevocability of data access on blockchain. They did, however, favor a blockchain-based PHR that incorporates a private key recovery system and offers a health wallet hosted by government or other positively perceived organizations. They were more inclined to share data via blockchain if the third party used the data for collective good and offered participants nonmonetary forms of compensation and if the access could be revoked from the third party.ConclusionsHealth care consumers were not strongly inclined to adopt blockchain-based PHRs and health data sharing. However, their intentions may increase when the concerns and recommendations demonstrated in this study are considered in application design.

Project description:Surveys of doctors suggest that they use placebos and placebo effects clinically to help patients. However, patients' views are not well-understood. We aimed to identify when and why placebo-prescribing in primary care might be acceptable and unacceptable to patients.A purposive diverse sample of 58 English-speaking adults (18 men; aged 19-80 years) participated in 11 focus groups. Vignettes describing doctors prescribing placebos in primary care were used to initiate discussions. Data were analyzed inductively.Participants discussed diverse harms and benefits of placebo-prescribing for individual patients, carers, healthcare providers, and society. Two perspectives on placebo-prescribing were identified. First, the "consequentialist" perspective focused on the potential for beneficial outcomes of placebo-prescribing. Here, some participants thought placebos are beneficial and should be used clinically; they often invoked the power of the mind or mind-body interactions. Others saw placebos as ineffective and therefore a waste of time and money. Second, the "respecting autonomy" perspective emphasized the harms caused by the deceptive processes thought necessary for placebo-prescribing. Here, participants judged placebo-prescribing unacceptable because placebo-prescribers deceive patients, thus a doctor who prescribes placebos cannot be trusted and patients' autonomy is compromised. They also saw placebo-responders as gullible, which deterred them from trying placebos themselves. Overall, the word "placebo" was often thought to imply "ineffective"; some participants suggested alternative carefully chosen language that could enable doctors to prescribe placebos without directly lying to patients.Negative views of placebos derive from beliefs that placebos do not work and/or that they require deception by the doctor. Positive views are pragmatic in that if placebos work then any associated processes (e.g. mechanisms, deception) are deemed unimportant. Public education about placebos and their effects is warranted and research to identify optimal ways of harnessing placebo effects in clinical practice is needed.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care physicians are particularly prone to high levels of burnout and poor well-being. Despite this, no qualitative studies have specifically investigated the best ways to improve well-being and prevent burnout in primary care physicians. Previous interventions within primary care have been person-oriented and mainly focused on mindfulness, but there has been no prior research on whether general practitioners (GPs) deem this to be the best approach.ObjectivesTo explore strategies that could improve GP well-being and reduce or prevent burnout, based on GP perceptions of the workplace factors that affect their levels of well-being and burnout.MethodsFive focus groups were conducted, with 25 GPs (locums, salaried, trainees, and partners) in the UK, between September 2015 and February 2016. Focus groups took place in GP practices and private meeting rooms. Discussions were centered on the workplace factors that they perceived to influence their well-being, along with strategies that they use either personally, or as a practice, to try and prevent burnout. Furthermore, strategies that could feasibly be implemented by individuals and practices to improve well-being, as well as changes that are needed by groups or organizations that are external to their practice (e.g., the government) to improve the working conditions, were explored. Thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts.ResultsBased on the contributors to burnout and workplace well-being that the participants identified, the following feasible strategies were suggested: compulsory daily coffee breaks, increasing self- and organizational awareness of the risks of burnout and mentoring or buddy systems. System-level organizational changes were voiced as vital, however, to improve the well-being of all primary care physicians. Increasing resources seemed to be the ideal solution, to allow for more administrative staff and GPs.ConclusionThese strategies merit further consideration by researchers, physicians, healthcare organizations and policy makers both in the UK and beyond. Failure to do so may result in healthcare staff becoming even more burntout, potentially leading to a loss of doctors from the workforce.

Dataset Information

Australians' views on personal genomic testing: focus group findings from the Genioz study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets