Literature DB >> 36046768

Returning negative results from large-scale genomic screening: Experiences from the eMERGE III network.

Kelsey Stuttgen Finn1,2, John Lynch3, Sharon Aufox4, Sarah Bland5, Wendy Chung6, Colin Halverson7, Scott Hebbring8, Christin Hoell4, Ingrid Holm9,10, Gail Jarvik11, Iftikhar Kullo12, Kathleen Leppig13,14, Melanie Myers15,16, Cynthia Prows16, Hila Milo Rasouly17, Rajbir Singh18,19, Georgia Weisner20,21, Janet Williams22, Julia Wynn6, Maureen Smith23, Richard Sharp1,2.   

Abstract

Population-based genomic screening has the potential to improve health outcomes by identifying genetic causes of disease before they occur. While much attention has been paid to supporting the needs of the small percentage of patients who will receive a life-altering positive genomic screening result that requires medical attention, little attention has been given to the communication of negative screening results. As there are currently no best practices for returning negative genomic screening results, we drew on experiences across the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) III Network to highlight the diversity of reporting methods employed, challenges encountered in reporting negative test results, and "lessons learned" across institutions. A 60-item survey that consisted of both multiple choice and open-ended questions was created to gather data across institutions. Even though institutions independently developed procedures for reporting negative results, and had very different study populations, we identified several similarities of approach, including but not limited to: returning results by mail, placing results in the electronic health record via an automated process, reporting results to participants' primary care provider, and providing genetic counseling to interested patients at no cost. Differences in procedures for reporting negative results included: differences in terminology used to describe negative results, definitions of negative results, guidance regarding the meaning of negative results for participants and their family members, and recommendations for clinical follow up. Our findings highlight emerging practices for reporting negative genomic screening results and highlight the need to create patient education and clinical support tools for reporting negative screening results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genomic screening; negative results; return of results

Year:  2020        PMID: 36046768      PMCID: PMC9426643          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.62002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.578


  14 in total

1.  Personal genomics: information can be harmful.

Authors:  D F Ransohoff; M J Khoury
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.686

2.  Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

Authors:  Joel E Pacyna; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Sarah M Jenkins; Erica J Sutton; Caroline Horrow; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 6.318

3.  The nuanced negative: Meanings of a negative diagnostic result in clinical exome sequencing.

Authors:  Debra Skinner; Kelly A Raspberry; Martha King
Journal:  Sociol Health Illn       Date:  2016-08-19

4.  Parental Perception of Self-Empowerment in Pediatric Pharmacogenetic Testing: The Reactions of Parents to the Communication of Actual and Hypothetical CYP2D6 Test Results.

Authors:  Sarah Adelsperger; Cynthia A Prows; Melanie F Myers; Cassandra L Perry; Ariel Chandler; Ingrid A Holm; John A Lynch
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2016-08-30

5.  Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Muin J Khoury; James P Evans
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Patient reactions to receiving negative genomic screening results by mail.

Authors:  Kelsey Stuttgen; Joel Pacyna; Annika Beck; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Neutral, Negative, or Negligible? Changes in Patient Perceptions of Disease Risk Following Receipt of a Negative Genomic Screening Result.

Authors:  Kelsey Stuttgen; Joel Pacyna; Iftikhar Kullo; Richard Sharp
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-04-17

8.  Making pretest genomic counseling optional: lessons from the RAVE study.

Authors:  Erica J Sutton; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Returning negative results to individuals in a genomic screening program: lessons learned.

Authors:  Rita M Butterfield; James P Evans; Christine Rini; Kristine J Kuczynski; Margaret Waltz; R Jean Cadigan; Katrina A B Goddard; Kristin R Muessig; Gail E Henderson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network.

Authors:  John A Lynch; Richard R Sharp; Sharon A Aufox; Sarah T Bland; Carrie Blout; Deborah J Bowen; Adam H Buchanan; Colin Halverson; Margaret Harr; Scott J Hebbring; Nora Henrikson; Christin Hoell; Ingrid A Holm; Gail Jarvik; Iftikhar J Kullo; David C Kochan; Eric B Larson; Amanda Lazzeri; Kathleen A Leppig; Jill Madden; Maddalena Marasa; Melanie F Myers; Josh Peterson; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; James Ralston; Hila Milo Rasouly; Aaron Scrol; Maureen E Smith; Amy Sturm; Kelsey Stuttgen; Georgia Wiesner; Marc S Williams; Julia Wynn; Janet L Williams
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-05-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.