Literature DB >> 24845082

Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Joon-Ho Yu1, Julia Crouch, Seema M Jamal, Michael J Bamshad, Holly K Tabor.   

Abstract

Exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (ES/WGS) present individuals with the opportunity to benefit from a broad scope of genetic results of clinical and personal utility. Yet, it is unclear which genetic results people want to receive (i.e., what type of genetic information they want to learn about themselves) or conversely not receive, and how they want to receive or manage results over time. Very little is known about whether and how attitudes toward receiving individual results from ES/WGS vary among racial/ethnic populations. We conducted 13 focus groups with a racially and ethnically diverse parent population (n = 76) to investigate attitudes toward return of individual results from WGS. We report on our findings for non-African American (non-AA) participants. Non-AA participants were primarily interested in genetic results on which they could act or "do something about." They defined "actionability" broadly to include individual medical treatment and disease prevention. The ability to plan for the future was both a motivation for and an expected benefit of receiving results. Their concerns focused on the meaning of results, specifically the potential inaccuracy and uncertainty of results. Non-AA participants expected healthcare providers to be involved in results management by helping them interpret results in the context of their own health and by providing counseling support. We compare and contrast these themes with those we previously reported from our analysis of African American (AA) perspectives to highlight the importance of varying preferences for results, characterize the central role of temporal orientation in framing expectations about the possibility of receiving ES/WGS results, and identify potential avenues by which genomic healthcare disparities may be inadvertently perpetuated.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  exome sequencing; return of results; whole genome sequencing

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24845082      PMCID: PMC4357389          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36610

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  59 in total

1.  Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: "incidental findings," patient autonomy, and shared decision making.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Mark A Rothstein; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Public perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and managing ancillary findings.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Genevieve Tindall; Julianne M O'Daniel
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2011-11-02

3.  The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Yann Joly; Jacques Simard; Francine Durocher
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Understanding participation by African Americans in cancer genetics research.

Authors:  Jasmine A McDonald; Frances K Barg; Benita Weathers; Carmen E Guerra; Andrea B Troxel; Susan Domchek; Deborah Bowen; Judy A Shea; Chanita Hughes Halbert
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.798

5.  Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications.

Authors:  Seema M Jamal; Joon-Ho Yu; Jessica X Chong; Karin M Dent; Jessie H Conta; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Association between temporal orientation and attitudes about BRCA1/2 testing among women of African descent with family histories of breast cancer.

Authors:  Tiffany A Edwards; Hayley S Thompson; Naa Oyo A Kwate; Karen Brown; Margaret M McGovern; Andrea Forman; Nidhi Kapil-Pair; Lina Jandorf; Dana H Bovbjerg; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-05-13

7.  Secondary researchers' duties to return incidental findings and individual research results: a partial-entrustment account.

Authors:  Henry S Richardson; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Taxonomizing, sizing, and overcoming the incidentalome.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Michael Hsing; Sek Won Kong
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Mutations in KPTN cause macrocephaly, neurodevelopmental delay, and seizures.

Authors:  Emma L Baple; Reza Maroofian; Barry A Chioza; Maryam Izadi; Harold E Cross; Saeed Al-Turki; Katy Barwick; Anna Skrzypiec; Robert Pawlak; Karin Wagner; Roselyn Coblentz; Tala Zainy; Michael A Patton; Sahar Mansour; Phillip Rich; Britta Qualmann; Matt E Hurles; Michael M Kessels; Andrew H Crosby
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 11.025

View more
  25 in total

1.  Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

Authors:  K A Kaphingst; J Ivanovich; B B Biesecker; R Dresser; J Seo; L G Dressler; P J Goodfellow; M S Goodman
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 2.  Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Jennefer N Kohler; Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Much ado about nothing: A qualitative study of the experiences of an average-risk population receiving results of exome sequencing.

Authors:  Shannon Rego; Orit Dagan-Rosenfeld; Stephanie A Bivona; Michael P Snyder; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations.

Authors:  Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Carol R Horowitz; Frank Angelo; Jeannette T Bensen; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; Kelly Filipski; Stephanie M Fullerton; Bruce D Gelb; Katrina A B Goddard; Benyam Hailu; Ragan Hart; Kristen Hassmiller-Lich; Galen Joseph; Eimear E Kenny; Barbara A Koenig; Sara Knight; Pui-Yan Kwok; Katie L Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Mary E Norton; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Bradford C Powell; Neil Risch; Mimsie Robinson; Christine Rini; Sarah Scollon; Anne M Slavotinek; David L Veenstra; Melissa P Wasserstein; Benjamin S Wilfond; Lucia A Hindorff; Sharon E Plon; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Adolescent perspectives on the return of individual results in genomic addiction research.

Authors:  Marilyn E Coors; Kristen M Raymond; Shannon K McWilliams; Christian J Hopfer; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson
Journal:  Psychiatr Genet       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.458

Review 6.  Mind the gap: resources required to receive, process and interpret research-returned whole genome data.

Authors:  Dana C Crawford; Jessica N Cooke Bailey; Farren B S Briggs
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 7.  Living laboratory: whole-genome sequencing as a learning healthcare enterprise.

Authors:  M Angrist; L Jamal
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 4.438

8.  Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Dean A Regier; Stuart J Peacock; Reka Pataky; Kimberly van der Hoek; Gail P Jarvik; Jeffrey Hoch; David Veenstra
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Information Topics of Greatest Interest for Return of Genome Sequencing Results among Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer at a Young Age.

Authors:  Joann Seo; Jennifer Ivanovich; Melody S Goodman; Barbara B Biesecker; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-08-20       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Jennifer Ivanovich; Sarah Lyons; Barbara Biesecker; Rebecca Dresser; Ashley Elrick; Cindy Matsen; Melody Goodman
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.