Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

18 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Preferences of biobank participants for receiving actionable genomic test results: results of a recontacting study.

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

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Population-based biobank participants' preferences for receiving genetic test results.

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

Primary care providers' preferences for the communication and management of actionable genomic findings from a research biobank.

Project description:PurposeLittle is known about non-genetics health care specialists' attitudes toward the return and utilization of actionable genomic results from a research biobank. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) to explore their perspectives on these results and their preferences for return.MethodsWe administered a paper and web-based 27-question survey to PCPs residing locally and caring for adult patients. Recruitment was conducted in person and by email, focusing on PCPs likely to interact with results generated by our institution's biobank.ResultsOf the ~482 PCPs contacted, 77 (16%) returned surveys. Although most respondents (90%) prefer that a genetics specialist be involved in communicating biobank-generated genomic results to patients, about 40% of respondents reported that a PCP shares the responsibility to discuss these results along with other specialists. A majority of respondents (74%) felt uncomfortable communicating these results to patients. However, respondents reported significantly greater comfort with this process when offered targeted educational resources (62% with vs 10% without resources; P < 10-5).ConclusionPCPs recognize the need to engage with their patients' biobank-generated genomic results but feel uncomfortable in doing so. Relevant resources are needed to improve PCPs' confidence in the use of these types of results to affect patient care.

| S-EPMC10824104 | biostudies-literature

Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization.

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

Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results.

Project description:IntroductionDissemination 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.MethodsFour 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.ResultsFour 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.ConclusionResearch 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

Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results.Patients and methodsWe 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsOurGenes 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

Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants.

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

Recontacting participants for expanded uses of existing samples and data: a case study.

Project description:PurposeFacilitating genomic research may require the use of samples and data collected via consent processes that did not include specific descriptions of secondary uses. We explore whether a waiver of consent with notification and the option to withdraw (WNOW) is a viable alternative to written informed consent for secondary uses of samples and data.MethodsWe developed a retrospective case study of a rare-disease protocol involving 1,978 participants that implemented WNOW for genomic data-sharing activities. We analyzed institutional review board and investigator records and conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with key staff members.ResultsWNOW was largely successful at achieving its goals in this case, although the recontact effort, relative to proceeding with a waiver, decreased participation in genomic data sharing by 13.8% (n = 253), primarily because 224 letters were returned as undeliverable. A small number of participants responded (n = 89), and some of them expressed confusion and frustration. In the pediatric arm of the study, the research may have been practicable without a waiver, given the relationship between the pediatric clinicians and families.ConclusionThe practicability of conducting research on existing specimens without a waiver of informed consent, and whether WNOW is a viable alternative, depend on contextual factors, including a reliable way to communicate with participants.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.

| S-EPMC6097706 | biostudies-literature

Lessons learned during the process of reporting individual genomic results to participants of a population-based biobank.

Project description:The return of individual genomic results (ROR) to research participants is still in its early phase, and insight on how individuals respond to ROR is scarce. Studies contributing to the evidence base for best practices are crucial before these can be established. Here, we describe a ROR procedure conducted at a population-based biobank, followed by surveying the responses of almost 3000 participants to a range of results, and discuss lessons learned from the process, with the aim of facilitating large-scale expansion. Overall, participants perceived the information that they received with counseling as valuable, even when the reporting of high risks initially caused worry. The face-to-face delivery of results limited the number of participants who received results. Although the participants highly valued this type of communication, additional means of communication need to be considered to improve the feasibility of large-scale ROR. The feedback collected sheds light on the value judgements of the participants and on potential responses to the receipt of genetic risk information. Biobanks in other countries are planning or conducting similar projects, and the sharing of lessons learned may provide valuable insight and aid such endeavors.

| S-EPMC10474261 | biostudies-literature

Participants' Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana.

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

Preferences for Updates on General Research Results: A Survey of Participants in Genomic Research from Two Institutions.

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. We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018. 397 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. Future 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

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data