Steven Joffe1,2, Deborah E Sellers3, Lynette Ekunwe4, Donna Antoine-Lavigne5, Sarah McGraw6, Daniel Levy7,8, Greta Lee Splansky7,9. 1. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA (S.J.). 2. Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, PA (S.J.). 3. Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (D.E.S.). 4. School of Public Health, Jackson Heart Study, Jackson State University, Jackson, MS (L.E.). 5. Jackson Hinds Comprehensive Health Center, Jackson, MS (D.A.-L.). 6. The Hastings Center, Garrison, NY (S.M.). 7. Framingham Heart Study, Framingham, MA (D.L., G.L.S.). 8. Population Sciences Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (D.L.). 9. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (G.L.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surveys suggest that most research participants desire access to secondary (incidental) genomic findings. However, few studies clarify whether preferences vary by the nature of the finding. METHODS: We surveyed members of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study, n=960), the FHS (Framingham Heart Study; n=955), and African American members of the FHS Omni cohort (n=160) who had consented to genomic studies. Each factorial survey included 3 vignettes, randomly selected from a set of 64, that described a secondary genomic result. Vignettes varied systematically by 5 factors identified by expert panels as salient: phenotype severity, actionability (preventability), reproductive significance, and relative and absolute risk of the phenotype. Respondents indicated whether they would want to receive the result. Data were analyzed separately by cohort using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Response rates ranged from 67% to 73%. Across vignettes, 88% to 92% of respondents would definitely or probably want to learn the result. In multivariate analyses among JHS respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing, lower education, higher subjective numeracy, and younger age, but not with any of the 5 factors. Among FHS respondents, desire for results was associated with higher absolute risk, preventability, reproductive risk, and positive attitudes towards genetic testing. Among FHS Omni respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing and younger age. CONCLUSIONS: Most genetic research participants desire return of secondary genetic results. Several factors identified by expert panels as salient are associated with preferences among FHS, but not JHS or FHS Omni, participants.
BACKGROUND: Surveys suggest that most research participants desire access to secondary (incidental) genomic findings. However, few studies clarify whether preferences vary by the nature of the finding. METHODS: We surveyed members of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study, n=960), the FHS (Framingham Heart Study; n=955), and African American members of the FHS Omni cohort (n=160) who had consented to genomic studies. Each factorial survey included 3 vignettes, randomly selected from a set of 64, that described a secondary genomic result. Vignettes varied systematically by 5 factors identified by expert panels as salient: phenotype severity, actionability (preventability), reproductive significance, and relative and absolute risk of the phenotype. Respondents indicated whether they would want to receive the result. Data were analyzed separately by cohort using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Response rates ranged from 67% to 73%. Across vignettes, 88% to 92% of respondents would definitely or probably want to learn the result. In multivariate analyses among JHS respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing, lower education, higher subjective numeracy, and younger age, but not with any of the 5 factors. Among FHS respondents, desire for results was associated with higher absolute risk, preventability, reproductive risk, and positive attitudes towards genetic testing. Among FHS Omni respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing and younger age. CONCLUSIONS: Most genetic research participants desire return of secondary genetic results. Several factors identified by expert panels as salient are associated with preferences among FHS, but not JHS or FHS Omni, participants.
Authors: Leila Jamal; Jill O Robinson; Kurt D Christensen; Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Melody J Slashinski; Denise Lautenbach Perry; Jason L Vassy; Julia Wycliff; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2017-01-27
Authors: Daniel Levy; Greta Lee Splansky; Nicolle K Strand; Larry D Atwood; Emelia J Benjamin; Susan Blease; L Adrienne Cupples; Ralph B D'Agostino; Caroline S Fox; Margaret Kelly-Hayes; Greg Koski; Martin G Larson; Karen M Mutalik; Elizabeth Oberacker; Christopher J O'Donnell; Patrice Sutherland; Maureen Valentino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Philip A Wolf; Joanne M Murabito Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2010-12
Authors: Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Susan M Wolf; Brittney N Crock; Brian Van Ness; Frances Lawrenz; Jeffrey P Kahn; Laura M Beskow; Mildred K Cho; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Ralph Hall; Judy Illes; Moira Keane; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Isaac S Kohane; Bonnie Leroy; Karen J Maschke; William McGeveran; Pilar Ossorio; Lisa S Parker; Gloria M Petersen; Henry S Richardson; Joan A Scott; Sharon F Terry; Benjamin S Wilfond; Wendy A Wolf Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 8.822
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: Noura S Abul-Husn; Emily R Soper; Giovanna T Braganza; Jessica E Rodriguez; Natasha Zeid; Sinead Cullina; Dean Bobo; Arden Moscati; Amanda Merkelson; Ruth J F Loos; Judy H Cho; Gillian M Belbin; Sabrina A Suckiel; Eimear E Kenny Journal: Genome Med Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Adelyn Beil; Whitney Hornsby; Cristen Willer; J Scott Roberts; Wendy R Uhlmann; Rajani Aatre; Patricia Arscott; Brooke Wolford; Kim A Eagle; Bo Yang; Jennifer McNamara Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Carrie L Blout Zawatsky; Nidhi Shah; Kalotina Machini; Emma Perez; Kurt D Christensen; Hana Zouk; Marcie Steeves; Christopher Koch; Melissa Uveges; Janelle Shea; Nina Gold; Joel Krier; Natalie Boutin; Lisa Mahanta; Heidi L Rehm; Scott T Weiss; Elizabeth W Karlson; Jordan W Smoller; Matthew S Lebo; Robert C Green Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Joseph Ochieng; Betty Kwagala; John Barugahare; Erisa Mwaka; Deborah Ekusai-Sebatta; Joseph Ali; Nelson K Sewankambo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 3.752