Literature DB >> 33876469

Preferences for and acceptability of receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail: A focus group study with a primarily African-American cohort.

Priscilla A Chan1, Katie L Lewis1, Barbara B Biesecker2, Lori H Erby1, Grace-Ann Fasaye3, Sandra Epps1, Leslie G Biesecker1, Erin Turbitt4.   

Abstract

Although genetic counseling is traditionally done through in-person, one-on-one visits, workforce shortages call for efficient result return mechanisms. Studies have shown that telephone and in-person return of cancer genetic results are equivalent for patient outcomes. Few studies have been conducted with other modes, result types or racially diverse participants. This study explored participants' perspectives on receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail. Two experienced moderators facilitated six focus groups with 49 individuals who self-identified primarily as African-American and consented to participate in a genome sequencing cohort study. Participants were given a hypothetical pharmacogenomic result report (positive for c.521T>C in SLCO1B1). An accompanying letter explained that the result was associated with statin intolerance along with a recommendation to share it with one's doctor and immediate relatives. Participants reacted to the idea of receiving this type of result by mail, discussing whether the letter's information was sufficient and what they predicted they would do with the result. Two researchers coded the focus group transcripts and identified themes. Many participants thought that it was appropriate to receive the result through the mail, but some suggested a phone call alerting the recipient to the letter. Others emphasized that although a letter was acceptable for disclosing pharmacogenomic results, it would be insufficient for what they perceived as life-threatening results. Most participants found the content sufficient. Some participants suggested resources about statin intolerance and warning signs be added. Most claimed they would share the result with their doctor, yet few participants offered they would share the result with their relatives. This exploratory study advances the evidence that African-American research participants are receptive to return of certain genetic results by approaches that do not involve direct contact with a genetic counselor and intend to share results with providers. ClinSeq: A Large-Scale Medical Sequencing Clinical Research Pilot Study (NCT00410241).
© 2021 National Society of Genetic Counselors. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  African-Americans; communication; genetic counseling; pharmacogenomics; scalable

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33876469      PMCID: PMC9026736          DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.717


  39 in total

1.  Engagement and return of results preferences among a primarily African American genomic sequencing research cohort.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Erin Turbitt; Priscilla A Chan; Sandra Epps; Barbara B Biesecker; Lori A H Erby; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 2.  A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Outcomes of Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Barbara A Athens; Samantha L Caldwell; Kendall L Umstead; Philip D Connors; Ethan Brenna; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

Authors:  Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  Effects of Delivering SLCO1B1 Pharmacogenetic Information in Randomized Trial and Observational Settings.

Authors:  Bruce Peyser; Emily P Perry; Kavisha Singh; Rosalynn D Gill; Michael R Mehan; Susanne B Haga; Michael D Musty; Nicholas A Milazzo; Dillon Savard; Yi-Ju Li; Gloria Trujilio; Deepak Voora
Journal:  Circ Genom Precis Med       Date:  2018-09

5.  Projecting the Supply and Demand for Certified Genetic Counselors: a Workforce Study.

Authors:  Jennifer M Hoskovec; R L Bennett; M E Carey; J E DaVanzo; M Dougherty; S E Hahn; B S LeRoy; S O'Neal; J G Richardson; C A Wicklund
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research.

Authors:  Anna Middleton; Katherine I Morley; Eugene Bragin; Helen V Firth; Matthew E Hurles; Caroline F Wright; Michael Parker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Projected Prevalence of Actionable Pharmacogenetic Variants and Level A Drugs Prescribed Among US Veterans Health Administration Pharmacy Users.

Authors:  Catherine Chanfreau-Coffinier; Leland E Hull; Julie A Lynch; Scott L DuVall; Scott M Damrauer; Francesca E Cunningham; Benjamin F Voight; Michael E Matheny; David W Oslin; Michael S Icardi; Sony Tuteja
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-06-05

8.  Knowledge, motivations, expectations, and traits of an African, African-American, and Afro-Caribbean sequencing cohort and comparisons to the original ClinSeq® cohort.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Alexis R Heidlebaugh; Sandra Epps; Paul K J Han; Kristen P Fishler; William M P Klein; Ilana M Miller; David Ng; Charlotte Hepler; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study.

Authors:  Amelia K Smit; Louise A Keogh; Jolyn Hersch; Ainsley J Newson; Phyllis Butow; Gabrielle Williams; Anne E Cust
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  A randomized controlled trial of disclosing genetic risk information for Alzheimer disease via telephone.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; Wendy R Uhlmann; J Scott Roberts; Erin Linnenbringer; Peter J Whitehouse; Charmaine D M Royal; Thomas O Obisesan; L Adrienne Cupples; Melissa B Butson; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Susan Hiraki; Clara A Chen; Uwe Siebert; Robert Cook-Deegan; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.