Literature DB >> 25900516

Community dissemination and genetic research: moving beyond results reporting.

Susan Brown Trinidad1, Evette J Ludman2, Scarlett Hopkins3, Rosalina D James1, Theresa J Hoeft3, Annie Kinegak4, Henry Lupie4, Ralph Kinegak4, Bert B Boyer3, Wylie Burke1.   

Abstract

The community-based participatory research (CBPR) literature notes that researchers should share study results with communities. In the case of human genetic research, results may be scientifically interesting but lack clinical relevance. The goals of this study were to learn what kinds of information community members want to receive about genetic research and how such information should be conveyed. We conducted eight focus group discussions with Yup'ik Alaska Native people in southwest Alaska (N = 60) and 6 (N = 61) with members of a large health maintenance organization in Seattle, Washington. Participants wanted to receive genetic information they "could do something about" and wanted clinically actionable information to be shared with their healthcare providers; they also wanted researchers to share knowledge about other topics of importance to the community. Although Alaska Native participants were generally less familiar with western scientific terms and less interested in web-based information sources, the main findings were the same in Alaska and Seattle: participants wished for ongoing dialogue, including opportunities for informal, small-group conversations, and receiving information that had local relevance. Effective community dissemination is more than a matter of presenting study results in lay language. Community members should be involved in both defining culturally appropriate communication strategies and in determining which information should be shared. Reframing dissemination as a two-way dialogue, rather than a one-way broadcast, supports the twin aims of advancing scientific knowledge and achieving community benefit.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alaska Native; communication; dissemination; genetic research; qualitative research

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25900516      PMCID: PMC4478235          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.37028

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


  29 in total

1.  Lay people's understanding of and preference against the word "mutation".

Authors:  Celeste M Condit; Tasha Dubriwny; John Lynch; Roxanne Parrott
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 2.  Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health.

Authors:  B A Israel; A J Schulz; E A Parker; A B Becker
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 21.981

3.  Team science for science communication.

Authors:  Gabrielle Wong-Parodi; Benjamin H Strauss
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  The challenge of informed consent and return of results in translational genomics: empirical analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Gail E Henderson; Susan M Wolf; Kristine J Kuczynski; Steven Joffe; Richard R Sharp; D Williams Parsons; Bartha M Knoppers; Joon-Ho Yu; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.718

5.  Physicians as part of the solution? Community-based participatory research as a way to get shared decision making into practice.

Authors:  Stuart W Grande; Marie-Anne Durand; Elliott S Fisher; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

Authors:  Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Physicians' perceptions of shared decision-making behaviours: a qualitative study demonstrating the continued chasm between aspirations and clinical practice.

Authors:  Rachel Zeuner; Dominick L Frosch; Marie D Kuzemchak; Mary C Politi
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Building partnerships in community-based participatory research: budgetary and other cost considerations.

Authors:  Theresa J Hoeft; Wylie Burke; Scarlett E Hopkins; Walkie Charles; Susan B Trinidad; Rosalina D James; Bert B Boyer
Journal:  Health Promot Pract       Date:  2013-04-30

9.  Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Seema M Jamal; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Shared decision making and motivational interviewing: achieving patient-centered care across the spectrum of health care problems.

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Christine Dehlendorf; Ronald M Epstein; Katy Marrin; James White; Dominick L Frosch
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2014 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.166

View more
  18 in total

1.  Mobile and Traditional Modes of Communication Among Male Latino Farmworkers: Implications for Health Communication and Dissemination.

Authors:  Joanne C Sandberg; Chaya R Spears Johnson; Ha T Nguyen; Jennifer W Talton; Sara A Quandt; Haiying Chen; Phillip Summers; Thomas A Arcury
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2016-06

2.  Engaging Hmong adults in genomic and pharmacogenomic research: Toward reducing health disparities in genomic knowledge using a community-based participatory research approach.

Authors:  Kathleen A Culhane-Pera; Robert J Straka; MaiKia Moua; Youssef Roman; Pachia Vue; Kang Xiaaj; May Xia Lo; Mai Lor
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-01-10

3.  Engaging Study Participants in Research Dissemination at a Center for Population Health and Health Disparities.

Authors:  Sarah Knerr; Sarah D Hohl; Yamile Molina; Marian L Neuhouser; Christopher I Li; Gloria D Coronado; Stephanie M Fullerton; Beti Thompson
Journal:  Prog Community Health Partnersh       Date:  2016

4.  Perspectives on communication and engagement with regard to collecting biospecimens and family health histories for cancer research in a rural Alaska Native community.

Authors:  Lisa G Dirks; Jennifer L Shaw; Vanessa Y Hiratsuka; Julie A Beans; Janet J Kelly; Denise A Dillard
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-01-30

5.  Health research participants' preferences for receiving research results.

Authors:  Christopher R Long; M Kathryn Stewart; Thomas V Cunningham; T Scott Warmack; Pearl A McElfish
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Hmong participants' reactions to return of individual and community pharmacogenetic research results: "A positive light for our community".

Authors:  K Holzer; K A Culhane-Pera; R J Straka; Y F Wen; M Lo; K Lee; T Xiong; K Peng; J Bishop; B Thyagarajan; H A Zierhut
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2020-08-06

7.  Health Research Funding Agencies' Policies, Recommendations, and Tools for Dissemination.

Authors:  Pearl A McElfish; Rachel S Purvis; M Kathryn Stewart; Laura James; Karen H Kim Yeary; Christopher R Long
Journal:  Prog Community Health Partnersh       Date:  2018

8.  First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants.

Authors:  Rachel S Purvis; Christopher R Long; Leah R Eisenberg; D Micah Hester; Thomas V Cunningham; Angel Holland; Harish E Chatrathi; Pearl A McElfish
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2020-03-12

9.  Qualitative study of participants' perceptions and preferences regarding research dissemination.

Authors:  Rachel S Purvis; Traci H Abraham; Christopher R Long; M Kathryn Stewart; T Scott Warmack; Pearl Anna McElfish
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2017-03-27

Review 10.  Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 2.512

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.