Literature DB >> 30835913

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

Shannon Rego1,2, Orit Dagan-Rosenfeld1, Stephanie A Bivona1, Michael P Snyder1, Kelly E Ormond1,3.   

Abstract

The increasing availability of exome sequencing to the general ("healthy") population raises questions about the implications of genomic testing for individuals without suspected Mendelian diseases. Little is known about this population's motivations for undergoing exome sequencing, their expectations, reactions, and perceptions of utility. In order to address these questions, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 participants recruited from a longitudinal multi-omics profiling study that included exome sequencing. Participants were interviewed after receiving exome results, which included Mendelian disease-associated pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants, pharmacogenetic variants, and risk assessments for multifactorial diseases such as type 2 diabetes. The primary motivation driving participation in exome sequencing was personal curiosity. While they reported feeling validation and relief, participants were frequently underwhelmed by the results and described having expected more from exome sequencing. All participants reported discussing the results with at least some family, friends, and healthcare providers. Participants' recollection of the results returned to them was sometimes incorrect or incomplete, in many cases aligning with their perceptions of their health risks when entering the study. These results underscore the need for different genetic counseling approaches for generally healthy patients undergoing exome sequencing, in particular the need to provide anticipatory guidance to moderate participants' expectations. They also provide a preview of potential challenges clinicians may face as genomic sequencing continues to scale-up in the general population despite a lack of full understanding of its impact.
© 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genomic sequencing; patient perspectives; perceived utility; whole-exome sequencing

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30835913      PMCID: PMC6456364          DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  40 in total

1.  Bearing bad news: Dealing with the mimics of denial.

Authors:  M S Lubinsky
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: the emerging issue of incidental findings.

Authors:  Amanda L Bergner; Juli Bollinger; Karen S Raraigh; Crystal Tichnell; Brittney Murray; Carrie Lynn Blout; Aida Bytyci Telegrafi; Cynthia A James
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Participants and Study Decliners' Perspectives About the Risks of Participating in a Clinical Trial of Whole Genome Sequencing.

Authors:  Jill Oliver Robinson; Thomas M Carroll; Lindsay Z Feuerman; Denise L Perry; Lily Hoffman-Andrews; Rebecca C Walsh; Kurt D Christensen; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-02-28       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  Whole-Exome Sequencing of 10 Scientists: Evaluation of the Process and Outcomes.

Authors:  Noralane M Lindor; Kimberly A Schahl; Kiley J Johnson; Katherine S Hunt; Kara A Mensink; Eric D Wieben; Eric Klee; John L Black; W Edward Highsmith; Stephen N Thibodeau; Matthew J Ferber; Umut Aypar; Yuan Ji; Rondell P Graham; Alexander S Fiksdal; Vivek Sarangi; Kelly E Ormond; Douglas L Riegert-Johnson; Tammy M McAllister; Gianrico Farrugia; Jennifer B McCormick
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 5.  Pharmacogenomics knowledge for personalized medicine.

Authors:  M Whirl-Carrillo; E M McDonagh; J M Hebert; L Gong; K Sangkuhl; C F Thorn; R B Altman; T E Klein
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 6.875

6.  Assessing the understanding of biobank participants.

Authors:  K E Ormond; A L Cirino; I B Helenowski; R L Chisholm; W A Wolf
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.802

7.  Personal omics profiling reveals dynamic molecular and medical phenotypes.

Authors:  Rui Chen; George I Mias; Jennifer Li-Pook-Than; Lihua Jiang; Hugo Y K Lam; Rong Chen; Elana Miriami; Konrad J Karczewski; Manoj Hariharan; Frederick E Dewey; Yong Cheng; Michael J Clark; Hogune Im; Lukas Habegger; Suganthi Balasubramanian; Maeve O'Huallachain; Joel T Dudley; Sara Hillenmeyer; Rajini Haraksingh; Donald Sharon; Ghia Euskirchen; Phil Lacroute; Keith Bettinger; Alan P Boyle; Maya Kasowski; Fabian Grubert; Scott Seki; Marco Garcia; Michelle Whirl-Carrillo; Mercedes Gallardo; Maria A Blasco; Peter L Greenberg; Phyllis Snyder; Teri E Klein; Russ B Altman; Atul J Butte; Euan A Ashley; Mark Gerstein; Kari C Nadeau; Hua Tang; Michael Snyder
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 41.582

8.  Psychological and behavioural impact of returning personal results from whole-genome sequencing: the HealthSeq project.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Michael D Linderman; Sabrina A Suckiel; Randi Zinberg; Melissa Wasserstein; Andrew Kasarskis; George A Diaz; Eric E Schadt
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Patient understanding of, satisfaction with, and perceived utility of whole-genome sequencing: findings from the MedSeq Project.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; Jill O Robinson; Pamela M Diamond; Archana Bharadwaj; Kurt D Christensen; Kaitlyn B Lee; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Patients' views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing.

Authors:  Kristin E Clift; Colin M E Halverson; Alexander S Fiksdal; Ashok Kumbamu; Richard R Sharp; Jennifer B McCormick
Journal:  Appl Transl Genom       Date:  2015-02-21
View more
  7 in total

1.  Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Mwenza Blell; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lorraine Cowley; Stephanie O M Dyke; Clara Gaff; Robert Green; Alison Hall; Amber L Johns; Bartha M Knoppers; Stephanie Mulrine; Christine Patch; Eva Winkler; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Emily C Shen; Swetha Srinivasan; Lauren E Passero; Caitlin G Allen; Madison Dixon; Kimberly Foss; Brianna Halliburton; Laura V Milko; Amelia K Smit; Rebecca Carlson; Megan C Roberts
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  A systematic literature review of disclosure practices and reported outcomes for medically actionable genomic secondary findings.

Authors:  Julie C Sapp; Flavia M Facio; Diane Cooper; Katie L Lewis; Emily Modlin; Philip van der Wees; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 8.864

4.  Comprehension and personal value of negative non-diagnostic genetic panel testing.

Authors:  Christin Hoell; Sharon Aufox; Nora Nashawaty; Melanie F Myers; Maureen E Smith
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 5.  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

6.  Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences with Population Genetic Testing Offered Through a Primary Care Network.

Authors:  Amy A Lemke; Laura M Amendola; Jennifer Thompson; Henry M Dunnenberger; Kristine Kuchta; Chi Wang; Kristen Dilzell-Yu; Peter J Hulick
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2021-02

7.  A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings.

Authors:  Ignaas Devisch; Elfride De Baere; Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Tania Moerenhout; Caroline Van Cauwenbergh; Bart P Leroy
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.