Lonna Mollison1, Julianne M O'Daniel2, Gail E Henderson3, Jonathan S Berg2, Debra Skinner4. 1. Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. lmolliso@email.unc.edu. 2. Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical genome or exome sequencing (GS/ES) provides a diagnosis for many individuals with suspected genetic disorders, but also yields negative or uncertain results for the majority. This study examines how parents of a child with an undiagnosed condition attribute personal utility to all types of ES results. METHODS: Return of 31 exome sequencing results was observed during clinic sessions, followed by semistructured interviews with parents one month later. Observations and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data display matrices were used for content analysis and systematic comparisons of parents' perceptions of utility. RESULTS: ES results could not provide all the answers to parents' questions, especially in cases of clinically uninformative results, but parents nonetheless attributed utility to the knowledge gained. Parents across all results categories used the genomic information to rule out possible causes, end or postpone the diagnostic odyssey, and shift focus to treatment and management of symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that parents value even uninformative ES results while expressing hope for future discoveries. As pediatric genetics moves toward GS/ES as a first-tier test, how parents perceive the personal utility of negative or uncertain results is an important topic for genetic counseling and further research.
PURPOSE: Clinical genome or exome sequencing (GS/ES) provides a diagnosis for many individuals with suspected genetic disorders, but also yields negative or uncertain results for the majority. This study examines how parents of a child with an undiagnosed condition attribute personal utility to all types of ES results. METHODS: Return of 31 exome sequencing results was observed during clinic sessions, followed by semistructured interviews with parents one month later. Observations and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data display matrices were used for content analysis and systematic comparisons of parents' perceptions of utility. RESULTS: ES results could not provide all the answers to parents' questions, especially in cases of clinically uninformative results, but parents nonetheless attributed utility to the knowledge gained. Parents across all results categories used the genomic information to rule out possible causes, end or postpone the diagnostic odyssey, and shift focus to treatment and management of symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that parents value even uninformative ES results while expressing hope for future discoveries. As pediatric genetics moves toward GS/ES as a first-tier test, how parents perceive the personal utility of negative or uncertain results is an important topic for genetic counseling and further research.
Entities:
Keywords:
diagnostic testing; exome sequencing; parent perceptions; pediatrics; personal utility
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: Hadley Stevens Smith; Stephanie R Morain; Jill Oliver Robinson; Isabel Canfield; Janet Malek; Caryn Kseniya Rubanovich; Cinnamon S Bloss; Sara L Ackerman; Barbara Biesecker; Kyle B Brothers; Crispin N Goytia; Carol R Horowitz; Sara J Knight; Barbara Koenig; Stephanie A Kraft; Simon Outram; Christine Rini; Kelly J Shipman; Margaret Waltz; Benjamin Wilfond; Amy L McGuire Journal: Patient Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Shannon Rego; Hannah Hoban; Simon Outram; Astrid N Zamora; Flavia Chen; Nuriye Sahin-Hodoglugil; Beatriz Anguiano; Matthew Norstad; Tiffany Yip; Billie Lianoglou; Teresa N Sparks; Mary E Norton; Barbara A Koenig; Anne M Slavotinek; Sara L Ackerman Journal: Genet Med Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Julie A Cakici; David P Dimmock; Sara A Caylor; Mary Gaughran; Christina Clarke; Cynthia Triplett; Michelle M Clark; Stephen F Kingsmore; Cinnamon S Bloss Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 11.025
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: Katherine E Donohue; Siobhan M Dolan; Dana Watnick; Katie M Gallagher; Jacqueline A Odgis; Sabrina A Suckiel; Nehama Teitelman; Bruce D Gelb; Eimear E Kenny; Melissa P Wasserstein; Carol R Horowitz; Laurie J Bauman Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-01-29