Preferences of biobank participants for receiving actionable genomic test results: results of a recontacting study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
We sought to determine preferences of biobank participants whose samples were tested for clinically actionable variants but did not respond to an initial invitation to receive results.Methods
We recontacted a subsample of participants in the Kaiser Permanente Washington/University of Washington site of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network. The subsample had provided broad consent for their samples to be used for research but had not responded to one initial mailed invitation to receive their results. We sent a letter from the principal investigators with phone outreach. If no contact was made, we sent a certified letter stating our assumption that participant had actively refused. We collected reasons for declining.Results
We recontacted 123 participants. Response rate was 70.7% (n = 87). Of these, 62 (71.3%) declined the offer of returned results and 25 (28.7%) consented. The most common reasons provided for refusal included not wanting to know (n = 22) and concerns about insurability (n = 28).Conclusion
Efforts to recontact biobank participants can yield high response. Though active refusal upon recontact was common, our data do not support assuming initial nonresponse to be refusal. Future research can work toward best practices for reconsenting, especially when clinically actionable results are possible.
SUBMITTER: Henrikson NB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8194390 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:There are ongoing debates on issues relating to returning individual research results (IRRs) and incidental findings (IFs) generated by genetic research in population-based biobanks. To understand how to appropriately return genetic results from biobank studies, we surveyed preferences for returning IRRs and IFs among participants of the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project (TMM). We mailed a questionnaire to individuals enrolled in the TMM cohort study (Group 1; n=1031) and a group of Tohoku region residents (Group 2; n=2314). The respondents were required to be over 20 years of age. Nearly 90% of Group 1 participants and over 80% of Group 2 participants expressed a preference for receiving their genetic test results. Furthermore, over 60% of both groups preferred to receive their genetic results 'from a genetic specialist.' A logistic regression analysis revealed that engaging in 'health-conscious behaviors' (such as regular physical activity, having a healthy diet, intentionally reducing alcohol intake and/or smoking and so on) was significant, positively associated with preferring to receive their genetic test results (odds ratio=2.397 (Group 1) and 1.897 (Group 2)). Our findings provided useful information and predictors regarding the return of IRRs and IFs in a population-based biobank.
| S-EPMC5709720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or genome sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to participant recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant, and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.
| S-EPMC8715145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Dissemination of results to research participants is largely missing from the practices of most researchers. Few resources exist that describe best practices for disseminating information to this important stakeholder group. Methods:Four focus groups were conducted with a diverse group of individuals. All participants were part of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded survey study. Focus groups aimed to identify participants' preferences about receiving research results and their reactions to three different dissemination platforms. Results:Four focus groups with 37 participants were conducted, including: (1) adults with one comorbidity, at least a college education, and high socioeconomic status (SES); (2) adults with one comorbidity, less than a college education, and lower SES; (3) adults with low health literacy and/or numeracy; and (4) Black or African American adults. Participants discussed their preferences for research results delivery and how each of the platforms met those preferences. This included information needs as they relate to content and scope, including a desire to receive both individual and aggregate results, and study summaries. Email, paper, and website were all popular avenues of presentation. Some desired a written summary, and others preferred videos or visual graphics. Importantly, participants emphasized the desire for having a choice in the timing, frequency, and types of results. Conclusion:Research participants prefer to receive research results, including study impact and key findings, disseminated to them in an engaging format that allows choice of when and how the information is presented. The results encourage new standards whereby research participants are considered a critical stakeholder group.
| S-EPMC7348009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results.We conducted a cross-sectional survey of participants in the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity biobank. Respondents were surveyed about preferences for disclosure, importance of disclosure, communication of results with practitioners, and sharing of results after respondents' death. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess independent sociodemographic and clinical predictors of disclosure preferences. Data collection occurred from June 6, 2011, to June 25, 2012.Among 1154 biobank participants, 555 (48%) responded. Most thought that research result disclosure was important (90%). Preference for disclosure varied, depending on availability of disease treatment (90% vs 64%, P<.001), high vs low disease risk (79% vs 66%, P<.001), and serious vs mild disease (83% vs 68%, P<.001). More than half of respondents (57%) preferred disclosure even when there is uncertainty about the results' meaning, and 87% preferred disclosure if the disease is highly heritable. Older age was positively associated with interest in disclosure, whereas female sex, nonwhite race, diabetes mellitus, and depression and/or anxiety were negatively associated with disclosure. More than half of respondents (52%) would want their results returned to their nearest biological relative after death.OurGenes biobank participants report strong preferences for disclosure of research results, and most would designate a relative to receive results after death. Participant preferences for serious vs mild disease, high vs low disease risk, and availability of disease treatment differed significantly. Future research should consider family members' preferences for receiving research results from enrolled research participants.
| S-EPMC4148696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDisclosure of pathogenic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants was implemented. The impact and costs, including confirmatory genetic testing in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory, were evaluated.MethodsWe exome sequenced 240 cases with thoracic aortic dissection and 258 controls, then examined 11 aortopathy genes. Pathogenic variants in 6 aortopathy genes (COL3A1, FBN1, LOX, PRKG1, SMAD3, and TGFBR2) were identified in 26 participants, representing 10.8% of the cohort (26/240). A second research sample was used to validate the initial findings. Mailed letters to participants disclosed that a potentially disease causing DNA alteration had been identified (neither the gene nor variant was disclosed). Participants were offered clinical genetic counseling and confirmatory genetic testing in a CLIA laboratory.ResultsExcluding 6 participants who were deceased or lost to follow-up, 20 participants received the disclosure letter, 10 of whom proceeded with genetic counseling, confirmatory genetic testing, and enrolled in a survey study. Participants reported satisfaction with the letter (4.2 ± 0.7) and genetic counseling (4.4 ± 0.4; [out of 5, respectively]). The psychosocial impact was characterized by low decisional regret (11.5 ± 11.6) and distress (16.0 ± 4.2, [out of 100, respectively]). The average cost for 26 participants was $400, including validation and sending letters. The average cost for those who received genetic counseling and CLIA laboratory confirmation was $605.ConclusionsParticipants were satisfied with the return of clinically significant biobank genetic results and CLIA laboratory testing; however, the process required significant time and resources. These findings illustrate the trade-offs involved for researchers considering returning research genetic results.
| S-EPMC7923508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The feedback of individual results of genomics research is an ethical issue. However, which genetic results African participants would like to receive and why, remains unclear. A qualitative study was conducted to collect data from 44 adolescents and 49 parents/caregivers of adolescents enrolled in a genomic study in Botswana. Almost all the participants wanted to receive genetic results. Parents and caregivers wanted to receive results across all categories of genetic conditions discussed in the study, while adolescents were reluctant to receive results for severe, non-preventable, and unactionable conditions. Participants expressed different reasons for wanting feedback of results, including for awareness, improving lifestyle, accepting one' situation, and preparing for the future. Our findings also reveal that participants' context, relations, and empowerment are important to consider in interpreting their preferences for feedback of results.
| S-EPMC8642165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency.MethodsWe conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018.Results397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants.ConclusionFuture studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.
| S-EPMC8151672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeasurement of environmental biomarkers in biomedia is increasingly used as a method of exposure characterization in human population studies. Reporting the results of biomarker measurements back to study participants has been controversial, including questions of ethics and whether the study participants would want to receive and would understand the results.MethodsRecently we mailed individual measurements of two serum biomarkers, perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to participants in three exposure studies of persons living in the Ohio River Valley, of whom 60 were parents of children who had been sampled. Many had serum concentrations of PFOA above the US population 95th percentile value. Reporting forms used in the three studies were somewhat different (either tables or charts for comparison to US population values) and varied in complexity. With all reports, we included information about concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in the general population, and a survey designed to ascertain the opinions of the study participants about the information they received.ResultsApproximately 33% (273/821) returned the survey, and of those, 96% reported that they were pleased that we had sent them the report. Most (86%) responded that the results were easy to understand and the enclosed fact sheet was helpful in answering questions (87%). Regarding the amount of information, most felt that we provided the "right amount" (78%) but some "too much" (7%) and some "too little" (15%). The majority (53%) were surprised at their serum concentrations. Of those with serum values > 13.0 ng/mL, 74% responded that they thought their serum concentration was "high", but only 22% of those with serum concentrations ≤5.6 responded that their concentration was "low". Surprisingly, many talked to no one about their levels; those who did were most likely to discuss the report with family members.ConclusionsReporting back individual environmental biomarker results is generally well received by study participants, and those with high concentrations perceived them to be high. Questions remain as to why study participants did not discuss their results with others.
| S-EPMC6407126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UK Biobank includes 502,649 middle- and older-aged adults from the general population who have undergone detailed phenotypic assessment. The majority of participants completed tests of cognitive functioning, and on average four years later a sub-group of N = 20,346 participants repeated most of the assessment. These measures will be used in a range of future studies of health outcomes in this cohort. The format and content of the cognitive tasks were partly novel. The aim of the present study was to validate and characterize the cognitive data: to describe the inter-correlational structure of the cognitive variables at baseline assessment, and the degree of stability in scores across longitudinal assessment. Baseline cognitive data were used to examine the inter-correlational/factor-structure, using principal components analysis (PCA). We also assessed the degree of stability in cognitive scores in the subsample of participants with repeat data. The different tests of cognitive ability showed significant raw inter-correlations in the expected directions. PCA suggested a one-factor solution (eigenvalue = 1.60), which accounted for around 40% of the variance. Scores showed varying levels of stability across time-points (intraclass correlation range = 0.16 to 0.65). UK Biobank cognitive data has the potential to be a significant resource for researchers looking to investigate predictors and modifiers of cognitive abilities and associated health outcomes in the general population.
| S-EPMC4844168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Surveys suggest that most research participants desire access to secondary (incidental) genomic findings. However, few studies clarify whether preferences vary by the nature of the finding.Methods:We surveyed members of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study, n=960), the FHS (Framingham Heart Study; n=955), and African American members of the FHS Omni cohort (n=160) who had consented to genomic studies. Each factorial survey included 3 vignettes, randomly selected from a set of 64, that described a secondary genomic result. Vignettes varied systematically by 5 factors identified by expert panels as salient: phenotype severity, actionability (preventability), reproductive significance, and relative and absolute risk of the phenotype. Respondents indicated whether they would want to receive the result. Data were analyzed separately by cohort using generalized linear mixed models.Results:Response rates ranged from 67% to 73%. Across vignettes, 88% to 92% of respondents would definitely or probably want to learn the result. In multivariate analyses among JHS respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing, lower education, higher subjective numeracy, and younger age, but not with any of the 5 factors. Among FHS respondents, desire for results was associated with higher absolute risk, preventability, reproductive risk, and positive attitudes towards genetic testing. Among FHS Omni respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing and younger age.Conclusions:Most genetic research participants desire return of secondary genetic results. Several factors identified by expert panels as salient are associated with preferences among FHS, but not JHS or FHS Omni, participants.
| S-EPMC7173999 | biostudies-literature