Literature DB >> 35396980

Perspectives and preferences regarding genomic secondary findings in underrepresented prenatal and pediatric populations: A mixed-methods approach.

Shannon Rego1, Hannah Hoban2, Simon Outram3, Astrid N Zamora3, Flavia Chen2, Nuriye Sahin-Hodoglugil2, Beatriz Anguiano4, Matthew Norstad3, Tiffany Yip2, Billie Lianoglou5, Teresa N Sparks6, Mary E Norton5, Barbara A Koenig3, Anne M Slavotinek7, Sara L Ackerman8.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing clinical exome sequencing (ES) are routinely offered the option to receive secondary findings (SF). However, little is known about the views of individuals from underrepresented minority pediatric or prenatal populations regarding SF.
METHODS: We explored the preferences for receiving hypothetical categories of SF (H-SF) and reasons for accepting or declining actual SF through surveying (n = 149) and/or interviewing (n = 47) 190 families undergoing pediatric or prenatal ES.
RESULTS: Underrepresented minorities made up 75% of the probands. In total, 150 families (79%) accepted SF as part of their child/fetus's ES. Most families (63%) wanted all categories of H-SF. Those who declined SF as part of ES were less likely to want H-SF across all categories. Interview findings indicate that some families did not recall their SF decision. Preparing for the future was a major motivator for accepting SF, and concerns about privacy, discrimination, and psychological effect drove decliners.
CONCLUSION: A notable subset of families (37%) did not want at least 1 category of H-SF, suggesting more hesitancy about receiving all available results than previously reported. The lack of recollection of SF decisions suggests a need for alternative communication approaches. Results highlight the importance of the inclusion of diverse populations in genomic research.
Copyright © 2022 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Exome sequencing; Genome sequencing; Secondary findings

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35396980      PMCID: PMC9536515          DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.864


  39 in total

1.  Assessing Genetic Literacy Awareness and Knowledge Gaps in the US Population: Results from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Authors:  Melinda Krakow; Chelsea L Ratcliff; Bradford W Hesse; Alexandra J Greenberg-Worisek
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Cynthia A Prows; Melissa DeJonckheere; William B Brinkman; Lisa Vaughn; Melanie F Myers
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Rapid genome-wide sequencing in a neonatal intensive care unit: A retrospective qualitative exploration of parental experiences.

Authors:  Caitlin E Aldridge; Horacio Osiovich; Harold Hal Siden; Alison M Elliott
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Barbara A Bernhardt; Myra I Roche; Denise L Perry; Sarah R Scollon; Ashley N Tomlinson; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Authors:  David T Miller; Kristy Lee; Wendy K Chung; Adam S Gordon; Gail E Herman; Teri E Klein; Douglas R Stewart; Laura M Amendola; Kathy Adelman; Sherri J Bale; Michael H Gollob; Steven M Harrison; Ray E Hershberger; Kent McKelvey; C Sue Richards; Christopher N Vlangos; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing.

Authors:  Layla Shahmirzadi; Elizabeth C Chao; Erika Palmaer; Melissa C Parra; Sha Tang; Kelly D Farwell Gonzalez
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Disparities in uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a randomized trial of telephone counseling.

Authors:  Morgan Butrick; Scott Kelly; Beth N Peshkin; George Luta; Rachel Nusbaum; Gillian W Hooker; Kristi Graves; Lisa Feeley; Claudine Isaacs; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Lina Jandorf; Tiffani DeMarco; Marie Wood; Wendy McKinnon; Judy Garber; Shelley R McCormick; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Research participant interest in primary, secondary, and incidental genomic findings.

Authors:  Jennifer T Loud; Renee C Bremer; Phuong L Mai; June A Peters; Neelam Giri; Douglas R Stewart; Mark H Greene; Blanche P Alter; Sharon A Savage
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Eric Bouffet; David Malkin; Nada Jabado; Colleen O'Connell; Denise Avard; Bartha M Knoppers; Meghan Ferguson; Kym M Boycott; Poul H Sorensen; Andrew C Orr; Johane M Robitaille; Christopher R McMaster
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  What does it mean to be genomically literate?: National Human Genome Research Institute Meeting Report.

Authors:  Belen Hurle; Toby Citrin; Jean F Jenkins; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Neil Lamb; Jo Ellen Roseman; Vence L Bonham
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.