Dataset Information

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking.

Methods

Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them.

Results

CSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies.

Conclusions

Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

SUBMITTER: Gutierrez AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8634302 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Clinical and research settings are increasingly incorporating genomic sequencing (GS) technologies. Previous research has explored reasons for declining genetic testing and participation in genetic studies; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding why potential participants decline participation in GS research, and if any of these reasons are unique to GS. This knowledge is essential to promote informed decision-making and identify potential barriers to research participation and clinical implementation. We aggregated data from seven sites across the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium on each project's procedures for recruitment, and rates of and reasons for decline. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The decline rate for enrollment at the seven CSER sites ranged from 12 to 64% (median 28%) and varied based on age and disease status. Projects differed in their protocols for approaching potential participants and obtaining informed consent. Reasons for declining GS research were reported for 1088 potential participants. Commonly cited reasons were similar to those reported for clinical single gene testing and non-GS genetic research. The most frequently cited reason for decline was study logistics (35%); thus, addressing logistical barriers to enrollment may positively impact GS study recruitment. Privacy and discrimination concerns were cited by 13% of decliners, highlighting the need for researchers and providers to focus educational efforts in this area. The potential psychological burden of pursuing and receiving results from GS and not wanting to receive secondary findings, a concern specific to GS, have been cited as concerns in the literature. A minority of potential participants cited psychological impact (8%) or not wanting to receive secondary findings (2%) as reasons for decline, suggesting that these concerns were not major barriers to participation in these GS studies. Further research is necessary to explore the impact, if any, of different participant groups or study protocols on rates of decline for GS studies. Future studies exploring GS implementation should consider using standardized collection methods to examine reasons for decline in larger populations and more diverse healthcare settings.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing diversity in clinical trial participation is necessary to improve health outcomes and requires addressing existing social, structural, and geographic barriers. The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium (CSER) included six research projects to enroll historically underrepresented/underserved (UR/US) populations in clinical genomics research. Delays and project re-designs emerged shortly after work began. Understanding common experiences of these projects may inform future trial implementation.MethodsSemi-structured interviews with six CSER principal investigators and seven project managers were performed. An interview guide included questions of research/clinical infrastructure, logistics across sites, language, communication, and allocation of grant-related resources. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim; transcripts were analyzed using inductive coding, thematic analysis and consensus building.ResultsAll projects collaborating with new clinical sub-sites to recruit UR/US populations. Refining trial logistics continued long after enrollment for all projects. Themes of challenges included: sub-site customization for workflow and genetics support, conflicting input from participant advisory groups and approval bodies, developing research personnel, complex data management structures, and external changes (e.g. subcontractors ending contracts) that required redesign. Themes of beneficial lessons included: domains with prior experience were easier, develop project champions at each sub-site, structure communication within the research team, and simplify research design when possible.ConclusionsThe operational aspects of expanding clinical research into novel sub-sites are significant and require investment of time and resources. The themes arising from these interviews suggest priority areas for more quantitative analyses in the future including multi-institutional approval policies and processes, data management structures, and incremental research complexity.