Juli Bollinger

Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study

Purpose:People are interested in receiving their individual research results in exchange for participating in genetic research. However, it is unclear whether the public understands the nature and limitations of these results and whether they would want information with unknown clinical utility.Methods:We conducted 10 focus groups in three US cities to examine the types of results people would want and the perceived value of different types of individual research results.Results:Nearly all focus group participants said they would want at least some individual research results returned. Priority was placed on results that are well understood. Less important to participants were the magnitude of the risk conferred and actionability of the result. In addition to helping treat or prevent disease, participants identified several other potential health-related and personal reasons for wanting individual research results. Many believed that researchers have an obligation to return individual research results. Although most people would prefer to receive as much information as possible, many would accept the return of a limited set of results.Conclusion:Participants understood the nuances and limitations of individual research results. Researchers deciding the value of returning a given result should consider using a broader definition of clinical utility as well as the possible personal utility of the information.Genet Med 2012:14(4):451–457

Risky Business: Risk Perception and the Use of Medical Services among Customers of DTC Personal Genetic Testing

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing has generated speculation about how customers will interpret results and how these interpretations will influence healthcare use and behavior; however, few empirical data on these topics exist. We conducted an online survey of DTC customers of 23andMe, deCODEme, and Navigenics to begin to address these questions. Random samples of U.S. DTC customers were invited to participate. Survey topics included demographics, perceptions of two sample DTC results, and health behaviors following DTC testing. Of 3,167 DTC customers invited, 33% (n = 1,048) completed the survey. Forty-three percent of respondents had sought additional information about a health condition tested; 28% had discussed their results with a healthcare professional; and 9% had followed up with additional lab tests. Sixteen percent of respondents had changed a medication or supplement regimen, and one-third said they were being more careful about their diet. Many of these health-related behaviors were significantly associated with responses to a question that asked how participants would perceive their colon cancer risk (as low, moderate, or high) if they received a test result showing an 11% lifetime risk, as compared to 5% risk in the general population. Respondents who would consider themselves to be at high risk for colon cancer were significantly more likely to have sought information about a disease (p = 0.03), discussed results with a physician (p = 0.05), changed their diet (p = 0.02), and started exercising more (p = 0.01). Participants’ personal health contexts—including personal and family history of disease and quality of self-perceived health—were also associated with health-related behaviors after testing. Subjective interpretations of genetic risk data and personal context appear to be related to health behaviors among DTC customers. Sharing DTC test results with healthcare professionals may add perceived utility to the tests.

Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research

Purpose:Some large population biobanks that house biospecimens and health information for research seek broad consent from participants, whereas others reconsent for specific new studies. Understanding research participants’ attitudes and preferences about broad and narrow consent may improve recruitment, retention, and public support.Methods:An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of 4,659 US adults to examine relationships between consent preferences and demographic factors, beliefs about privacy and the value of research, and the perceived trustworthiness of researchers.Results:Participants preferred broad consent (52%) over study-by-study consent models (48%). Higher preferences for study-by-study consent observed among black non-Hispanic respondents and respondents with lower income and education were explained by differences in the prevalence of one or more beliefs about the study. Respondents with fears about research and those who would feel respected if asked for permission for each research use preferred study-by-study consent. Preference for broad consent was related to the desire not to be bothered with multiple requests and the belief that the study could lead to improved treatments, cures, and lives saved.Conclusion:These data suggest that support for broad consent is contingent on sufficient information about data use. Work with research participants and community leaders to understand, respond to, and influence opinions about a given, ongoing study may improve uptake of broad consent.Genet Med 16 1, 11–18.

Preferences for opt-in and opt-out enrollment and consent models in biobank research: a national survey of Veterans Administration patients

Purpose:In 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs launched the Genomic Medicine Program with the goal of using genomic information to personalize and improve health care for veterans. A step toward this goal is the Million Veteran Program, which aims to enroll a million veterans in a longitudinal cohort study and establish a database with genomic, lifestyle, military-exposure, and health information. Before the launch of the Million Veteran Program, a survey of Department of Veterans Affairs patients was conducted to measure preferences for opt-in and opt-out models of enrollment and consent.Methods:An online survey was conducted with a random sample of 451 veterans. The survey described the proposed Million Veteran Program database and asked respondents about the acceptability of opt-in and opt-out models of enrollment. The study examined differences in responses among demographic groups and relationships between beliefs about each model and willingness to participate.Results:Most respondents were willing to participate under both opt-in (80%) and opt-out (69%) models. Nearly 80% said they would be comfortable providing access to residual clinical samples for research. At least half of respondents did not strongly favor one model over the other; of those who expressed a preference, significantly more people said they would participate in a study using opt-in methods. Stronger preferences for the opt-in approach were expressed among younger patients and Hispanic patients.Conclusion:Support for the study and willingness to participate were high for both enrollment models. The use of an opt-out model could impede recruitment of certain demographic groups, including Hispanic patients and patients under the age of 55 years.Genet Med 2012:14(9):787–794.

Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research: a conjoint analysis

Purpose:Recent policies specifying criteria about which individual research results to return leave considerable discretion to researchers. This study investigated the types of results that the public wants when participating in genetic research and whether preferences differ based on willingness to participate.Methods:A representative survey of US adults used conjoint analysis to measure priorities among eight principles of a results policy for a proposed large-cohort study. Policy preferences were measured using 12 tasks in which respondents chose between two groupings of the policy principles. Stratified analysis compared those self-identified as likely or unlikely to participate in genomic research.Results:Of 1,515 respondents, 56% would participate in the proposed study. All eight principles were positively endorsed by participants (all P < 0.003), with priority placed on providing results at no cost and returning well-validated results for treatable and serious diseases. Providing detailed result reports was more highly valued than providing staff to explain results (P = 0.0005). Receiving results about major changes in risk was marginally disvalued by those unlikely to participate (P = 0.35).Conclusion:Public preferences for well-validated individual research results for serious, actionable diseases agree with emerging recommendations. However, because preferences for receiving individual research results vary, some choices should be offered to research participants.Genet Med 16 12, 932–939.

Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: The emerging issue of incidental findings

Genomic sequencing technology is increasingly used in genetic research. Studies of informed consent for exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) research have largely involved hypothetical scenarios or healthy individuals enrolling in population‐based studies. Studies have yet to explore the consent experiences of adults with inherited disease. We conducted a qualitative interview study of 15 adults recently enrolled in a large‐scale ES/GS study (11 affected adults, four parents of affected children). Our study had two goals: (1) to explore three theoretical barriers to consent for ES/GS research (interpretive/technical complexity, possibility of incidental findings, and risks of loss of privacy); and (2) to explore how interviewees experienced the consent process. Interviewees could articulate study goals and processes, describe incidental findings, discuss risks of privacy loss, and reflect on their consent experience. Few expected the study would identify the genetic cause of their condition. All elected to receive incidental findings. Interviewees acknowledged paying little attention to potential implications of incidental findings in light of more pressing goals of supporting research regarding their own medical conditions. Interviewees suggested that experience living with a genetic condition prepared them to adjust to incidental findings. Interviewees also expressed little concern about loss of confidentiality of study data. Some experienced the consent process as very long. None desired reconsent prior to return of study results. Families with inherited disease likely would benefit from a consent process in which study risks and benefits were discussed in the context of prior experiences with genetic research and genetic disease.

Development of the clinical next-generation sequencing industry in a shifting policy climate.

Development of the clinical next-generation sequencing industry in a shifting policy climate

Demographic Differences in Willingness to Provide Broad and Narrow Consent for Biobank Research

PURPOSE This study examined acceptability of two biobank consent models and evaluated the impact of beliefs about privacy and genetic safeguards on acceptance. METHODS U.S. adults surveyed online in English and Spanish were randomly assigned to one of two scenarios examining acceptance of broad consent (n=1528), or narrow consent (n=1533). RESULTS Overall, willingness to provide broad (76%) and narrow (74%) consents were similar. African Americans were as likely as white non-Hispanics to accept narrow consent (72% vs. 77%, p=0.35) but significantly less likely to accept broad consent (69% vs. 81%, p=0.004). Education, insurance, and blood donation history were also related to acceptance. Adjusting for beliefs about privacy and policy protections (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, GINA), the effects of the variables were reduced. Respondents who drew comfort from GINA were more likely to support both consent (both p<0.001); those who believed it is impossible to maintain privacy were less likely to find both broad (p=0.04) and narrow models acceptable (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Choice of consent model matters when engaging diverse populations in biobank research. Beliefs underlying concerns about privacy and genetic protections should be considered when constructing biobank protocols.

Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease

Although consensus is building that primary (PR) and secondary findings (SF) from genomic research should be offered to participants under some circumstances, data describing (1) actual choices of study participants and (2) factors associated with these choices are limited, hampering study planning. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of choices made for return of PR and SF during informed consent by members of the first 247 families (790 individuals) enrolled in the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics, a genome sequencing study. Most (619; 78.3%) chose to receive SF and PR, 66 (8.4%) chose PR only, 65 (8.2%) wanted no results, and 40 (5.1%) chose SF only. Choosing SF was associated with an established clinical diagnosis in the proband (87.8 vs 79%, P=0.009) and European ancestry (EA) (87.7 vs 73%, P<0.008). Participants of non-European ancestry (NEA) were as likely as those of EA to choose SF when consented by a genetic counselor (GC) (82% NEA vs 88.3% EA, P=0.09) but significantly less likely when consented by a physician (67.4% NEA vs 85.4% EA, P=0.001). Controlling for proband diagnosis, individuals of NEA were 2.13-fold (95% CI: 1.11–4.08) more likely to choose SF when consented by a GC rather than a physician. Participants of NEA were 3-fold more likely than those of EA to decline all study results (14.7% NEA vs 5.4% EA, P<0.008). In this ethnically diverse population, whereas most participants desired PR and SF, more than 20% declined some or all results, highlighting the importance of research participant choice.

Barriers to clinical adoption of next generation sequencing: Perspectives of a policy Delphi panel

This research aims to inform policymakers by engaging expert stakeholders to identify, prioritize, and deliberate the most important and tractable policy barriers to the clinical adoption of next generation sequencing (NGS). A 4-round Delphi policy study was done with a multi-stakeholder panel of 48 experts. The first 2 rounds of online questionnaires (reported here) assessed the importance and tractability of 28 potential barriers to clinical adoption of NGS across 3 major policy domains: intellectual property, coverage and reimbursement, and FDA regulation. We found that: 1) proprietary variant databases are seen as a key challenge, and a potentially intractable one; 2) payer policies were seen as a frequent barrier, especially a perceived inconsistency in standards for coverage; 3) relative to other challenges considered, FDA regulation was not strongly perceived as a barrier to clinical use of NGS. Overall the results indicate a perceived need for policies to promote data-sharing, and a desire for consistent payer coverage policies that maintain reasonably high standards of evidence for clinical utility, limit testing to that needed for clinical care decisions, and yet also flexibly allow for clinician discretion to use genomic testing in uncertain circumstances of high medical need.