Literature DB >> 28218387

Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi study.

J N Kohler1, E Turbitt1, K L Lewis2, B S Wilfond3, L Jamal4, H L Peay5, L G Biesecker2, B B Biesecker1.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Delphi; genetic testing; genomics; personal outcomes; personal utility; utility

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28218387      PMCID: PMC5960986          DOI: 10.1111/cge.12998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  17 in total

Review 1.  Genetic test evaluation: information needs of clinicians, policy makers, and the public.

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

Review 2.  Self-projection and the brain.

Authors:  Randy L Buckner; Daniel C Carroll
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2006-12-22       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants.

Authors:  Vardit Ravitsky; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 4.  Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing.

Authors:  Leslie G Biesecker; Robert C Green
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Patients' perceived utility of whole-genome sequencing for their healthcare: findings from the MedSeq project.

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

6.  Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study.

Authors:  Flavia M Facio; Haley Eidem; Tyler Fisher; Stephanie Brooks; Amy Linn; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  The ClinSeq Project: piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine.

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

8.  A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice.

Authors:  David L Veenstra; Joshua A Roth; Louis P Garrison; Scott D Ramsey; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Characterizing Participants in the ClinSeq Genome Sequencing Cohort as Early Adopters of a New Health Technology.

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

10.  What is the clinical utility of genetic testing?

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  28 in total

1.  Ethics of returning children's individual research findings: from principles to practice.

Authors:  Gert-Jan Vanaken; Ilse Noens; Herbert Roeyers; Lotte van Esch; Petra Warreyn; Jean Steyaert; Kristien Hens
Journal:  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2020-07-26       Impact factor: 4.785

2.  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

3.  Return of individual results in epilepsy genomic research: A view from the field.

Authors:  Ruth Ottman; Catharine Freyer; Heather C Mefford; Annapurna Poduri; Daniel H Lowenstein
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 5.864

4.  Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group.

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

5.  Perceived utility and disutility of genomic sequencing for pediatric patients: Perspectives from parents with diverse sociodemographic characteristics.

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

Review 6.  Genetic Counseling and the Central Tenets of Practice.

Authors:  Barbara Biesecker
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 6.915

7.  Exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability: an evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

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

8.  In-vivo design feedback and perceived utility of a genetically-informed smoking risk tool among current smokers in the community.

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

9.  Proof of Concept of a Personalized Genetic Risk Tool to Promote Smoking Cessation: High Acceptability and Reduced Cigarette Smoking.

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

10.  Family-level impact of genetic testing: integrating health economics and ethical, legal, and social implications.

Authors:  Hadley Stevens Smith; Amy L McGuire; Eve Wittenberg; Tara A Lavelle
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 2.512

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.