Devan M Duenas1, Kelly J Shipman2, Kathryn M Porter3, Elizabeth Shuster4, Claudia Guerra5, Ana Reyes4, Tia L Kauffman4, Jessica Ezzell Hunter4, Katrina A B Goddard6, Benjamin S Wilfond7, Stephanie A Kraft7. 1. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: devan.duenas@seattlechildrens.org. 2. Palliative Care and Resilience Research Program, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 3. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 4. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR. 5. Department of Anthropology, History and Social Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 6. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD. 7. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA; Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Understanding the motivations and concerns of patients from diverse populations regarding participation in implementation research provides the needed evidence about how to design and conduct studies for facilitating access to genetics services. Within a hereditary cancer screening study assessing a multifaceted intervention, we examined primary care patients' motivations and concerns about participation. METHODS: We surveyed and interviewed study participants after they enrolled, surveyed those who did not complete enrollment, and used descriptive qualitative and quantitative methods to identify motivations and concerns regarding participation. RESULTS: Survey respondents' most common motivations included a desire to learn about their future risk (81%), receiving information that may help family (58%), and a desire to advance research (34%). Interviews revealed 3 additional important factors: affordability of testing, convenience of participation, and clinical relationships supporting research decision-making. Survey data of those who declined enrollment showed that the reasons for declining included concerns about privacy (38%), burdens of the research (19%), and their fear of not being able to cope with the genetic information (19%). CONCLUSION: Understanding the facilitating factors and concerns that contribute to decisions about research may reveal ways to improve equity in access to care and research that could lead to greater uptake of genomic medicine across diverse primary care patient populations.
PURPOSE: Understanding the motivations and concerns of patients from diverse populations regarding participation in implementation research provides the needed evidence about how to design and conduct studies for facilitating access to genetics services. Within a hereditary cancer screening study assessing a multifaceted intervention, we examined primary care patients' motivations and concerns about participation. METHODS: We surveyed and interviewed study participants after they enrolled, surveyed those who did not complete enrollment, and used descriptive qualitative and quantitative methods to identify motivations and concerns regarding participation. RESULTS: Survey respondents' most common motivations included a desire to learn about their future risk (81%), receiving information that may help family (58%), and a desire to advance research (34%). Interviews revealed 3 additional important factors: affordability of testing, convenience of participation, and clinical relationships supporting research decision-making. Survey data of those who declined enrollment showed that the reasons for declining included concerns about privacy (38%), burdens of the research (19%), and their fear of not being able to cope with the genetic information (19%). CONCLUSION: Understanding the facilitating factors and concerns that contribute to decisions about research may reveal ways to improve equity in access to care and research that could lead to greater uptake of genomic medicine across diverse primary care patient populations.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Mary Y Jung; Cheryl L Holt; Diane Ng; Hwa J Sim; Xiaoxiao Lu; Daisy Le; Hee-Soon Juon; Jun Li; Sunmin Lee Journal: Ethn Health Date: 2017-02-25 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Mildred K Cho; David Magnus; Melissa Constantine; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Maureen Kelley; Stephanie Alessi; Diane Korngiebel; Cyan James; Ellen Kuwana; Thomas H Gallagher; Douglas Diekema; Alexander M Capron; Steven Joffe; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stephanie Alessi Kraft; Mildred K Cho; Melissa Constantine; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Maureen Kelley; Diane Korngiebel; Cyan James; Ellen Kuwana; Adrienne Meyer; Kathryn Porter; Douglas Diekema; Alexander M Capron; Radica Alicic; Benjamin S Wilfond; David Magnus Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Saskia C Sanderson; Michael D Linderman; Sabrina A Suckiel; George A Diaz; Randi E Zinberg; Kadija Ferryman; Melissa Wasserstein; Andrew Kasarskis; Eric E Schadt Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Natalie M Baptista; Kurt D Christensen; Deanna Alexis Carere; Simon A Broadley; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 8.822