Jennifer Viberg Johansson1, Sophie Langenskiöld2,3, Pär Segerdahl4, Mats G Hansson4, Ulrika Ugander Hösterey5, Anders Gummesson5, Jorien Veldwijk4,6. 1. Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. jennifer.viberg@crb.uu.se. 2. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 3. Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 5. Department of Clinical Pathology and Genetics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management; Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to determine research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information when participating in a scientific study that uses genome sequencing. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent to 650 research participants (response rate 60.5%). Four attributes were selected for the questionnaire: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunity, and effectiveness of the preventive measure. Panel mixed logit models were used to determine attribute level estimates and the heterogeneity in preferences. Relative importance of the attribute and the predicted uptake for different information scenarios were calculated from the estimates. In addition, this study estimates predicted uptake for receiving genetic risk information in different scenarios. RESULTS: All characteristics influenced research participants' willingness to receive genetic risk information. The most important characteristic was the effectiveness of the preventive opportunity. Predicted uptake ranged between 28% and 98% depending on what preventive opportunities and levels of effectiveness were presented. CONCLUSION: Information about an effective preventive measure was most important for participants. They valued that attribute twice as much as the other attributes. Therefore, when there is an effective preventive measure, risk communication can be less concerned with the magnitude of the probability of developing disease.
PURPOSE: This study aims to determine research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information when participating in a scientific study that uses genome sequencing. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent to 650 research participants (response rate 60.5%). Four attributes were selected for the questionnaire: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunity, and effectiveness of the preventive measure. Panel mixed logit models were used to determine attribute level estimates and the heterogeneity in preferences. Relative importance of the attribute and the predicted uptake for different information scenarios were calculated from the estimates. In addition, this study estimates predicted uptake for receiving genetic risk information in different scenarios. RESULTS: All characteristics influenced research participants' willingness to receive genetic risk information. The most important characteristic was the effectiveness of the preventive opportunity. Predicted uptake ranged between 28% and 98% depending on what preventive opportunities and levels of effectiveness were presented. CONCLUSION: Information about an effective preventive measure was most important for participants. They valued that attribute twice as much as the other attributes. Therefore, when there is an effective preventive measure, risk communication can be less concerned with the magnitude of the probability of developing disease.
Entities:
Keywords:
genetic risk information; incidental findings; preferences for genetic risk information; research participants; secondary findings
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
Authors: Steven Joffe; Deborah E Sellers; Lynette Ekunwe; Donna Antoine-Lavigne; Sarah McGraw; Daniel Levy; Greta Lee Splansky Journal: Circ Genom Precis Med Date: 2019-11-22
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
Authors: Jennifer Hammond; Jasmijn E Klapwijk; Sam Riedijk; Stina Lou; Kelly E Ormond; Ida Vogel; Lisa Hui; Emma-Jane Sziepe; James Buchanan; Charlotta Ingvoldstad-Malmgren; Maria Johansson Soller; Eleanor Harding; Melissa Hill; Celine Lewis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240