J N Kohler1, E Turbitt1, K L Lewis2, B S Wilfond3, L Jamal4, H L Peay5, L G Biesecker2, B B Biesecker1. 1. Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Medical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 4. Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individual genome sequencing results are valued by patients in ways distinct from clinical utility. Such outcomes have been described as components of "personal utility," a concept that broadly encompasses patient-endorsed benefits, that is operationally defined as non-clinical outcomes. No empirical delineation of these outcomes has been reported. AIM: To address this gap, we administered a Delphi survey to adult participants in a National Institute of Health (NIH) clinical exome study to extract the most highly endorsed outcomes constituting personal utility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty research participants responded to a Delphi survey to rate 35 items identified by a systematic literature review of personal utility. RESULTS: Two rounds of ranking resulted in 24 items that represented 14 distinct elements of personal utility. Elements most highly endorsed by participants were: increased self-knowledge, knowledge of "the condition," altruism, and anticipated coping. DISCUSSION: Our findings represent the first systematic effort to delineate elements of personal utility that may be used to anticipate participant expectation and inform genetic counseling prior to sequencing. The 24 items reported need to be studied further in additional clinical genome sequencing studies to assess generalizability in other populations. Further research will help to understand motivations and to predict the meaning and use of results. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
BACKGROUND: Individual genome sequencing results are valued by patients in ways distinct from clinical utility. Such outcomes have been described as components of "personal utility," a concept that broadly encompasses patient-endorsed benefits, that is operationally defined as non-clinical outcomes. No empirical delineation of these outcomes has been reported. AIM: To address this gap, we administered a Delphi survey to adult participants in a National Institute of Health (NIH) clinical exome study to extract the most highly endorsed outcomes constituting personal utility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty research participants responded to a Delphi survey to rate 35 items identified by a systematic literature review of personal utility. RESULTS: Two rounds of ranking resulted in 24 items that represented 14 distinct elements of personal utility. Elements most highly endorsed by participants were: increased self-knowledge, knowledge of "the condition," altruism, and anticipated coping. DISCUSSION: Our findings represent the first systematic effort to delineate elements of personal utility that may be used to anticipate participant expectation and inform genetic counseling prior to sequencing. The 24 items reported need to be studied further in additional clinical genome sequencing studies to assess generalizability in other populations. Further research will help to understand motivations and to predict the meaning and use of results. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Entities:
Keywords:
Delphi; genetic testing; genomics; personal outcomes; personal utility; utility
Authors: Wylie Burke; David Atkins; Marta Gwinn; Alan Guttmacher; James Haddow; Joseph Lau; Glenn Palomaki; Nancy Press; C Sue Richards; Louise Wideroff; Georgia L Wiesner Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Philip J Lupo; Jill O Robinson; Pamela M Diamond; Leila Jamal; Heather E Danysh; Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Jason L Vassy; Kurt D Christensen; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire Journal: Per Med Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Leslie G Biesecker; James C Mullikin; Flavia M Facio; Clesson Turner; Praveen F Cherukuri; Robert W Blakesley; Gerard G Bouffard; Peter S Chines; Pedro Cruz; Nancy F Hansen; Jamie K Teer; Baishali Maskeri; Alice C Young; Teri A Manolio; Alexander F Wilson; Toren Finkel; Paul Hwang; Andrew Arai; Alan T Remaley; Vandana Sachdev; Robert Shamburek; Richard O Cannon; Eric D Green Journal: Genome Res Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Katie L Lewis; Paul K J Han; Gillian W Hooker; William M P Klein; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Elizabeth M Webber; Jessica Ezzell Hunter; Leslie G Biesecker; Adam H Buchanan; Elizabeth V Clarke; Erin Currey; Orit Dagan-Rosenfeld; Kristy Lee; Noralane M Lindor; Christa Lese Martin; Aleksandar Milosavljevic; Kathleen F Mittendorf; Kristin R Muessig; Julianne M O'Daniel; Ronak Y Patel; Erin M Ramos; Shannon Rego; Anne M Slavotinek; Nara Lygia M Sobriera; Meredith A Weaver; Marc S Williams; James P Evans; Katrina A B Goddard Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Meghan C Halley; Jennifer L Young; Liliana Fernandez; Jennefer N Kohler; Jonathan A Bernstein; Matthew T Wheeler; Holly K Tabor Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Kandamurugu Manickam; Monica R McClain; Laurie A Demmer; Sawona Biswas; Hutton M Kearney; Jennifer Malinowski; Lauren J Massingham; Danny Miller; Timothy W Yu; Fuki M Hisama Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Jessica L Bourdon; Amelia Dorsey; Maia Zalik; Amanda Pietka; Patricia Salyer; Michael J Bray; Laura J Bierut; Alex T Ramsey Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Alex T Ramsey; Jessica L Bourdon; Michael Bray; Amelia Dorsey; Maia Zalik; Amanda Pietka; Patricia Salyer; Li-Shiun Chen; Timothy B Baker; Marcus R Munafò; Laura J Bierut Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-09-21