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. 1. Institute for Human Genetics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: shannon.rego@gmail.com. 2. Institute for Human Genetics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 3. Institute for Health & Aging, School of Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. Institute for Human Genetics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Institute for Health & Aging, School of Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 5. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 6. Institute for Human Genetics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 7. Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 8. Institute for Health & Aging, School of Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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