Suchergebnisse

Many health‐related decisions require choosing between two options, each with risks and benefits. When presented with such tradeoffs, people often make choices that fail to align with scientific evidence or with their own values. This study tested whether risk communication and values clarification methods could help parents and guardians make evidence‐based, values‐congruent decisions about children's influenza vaccinations. In 2013–2014 we conducted an online 2×2 factorial experiment in which a diverse sample of U.S. parents and guardians (n = 407) were randomly assigned to view either standard information about influenza vaccines or risk communication using absolute and incremental risk formats. Participants were then either presented or not presented with an interactive values clarification interface with constrained sliders and dynamic visual feedback. Participants randomized to the risk communication condition combined with the values clarification interface were more likely to indicate intentions to vaccinate (β = 2.10, t(399) = 2.63, p < 0.01). The effect was particularly notable among participants who had previously demonstrated less interest in having their children vaccinated against influenza (β = –2.14, t(399) = –2.06, p < 0.05). When assessing vaccination status reported by participants who agreed to participate in a follow‐up study six months later (n = 116), vaccination intentions significantly predicted vaccination status (OR = 1.66, 95%CI (1.13, 2.44), p < 0.05) and rates of informed choice (OR = 1.51, 95%CI (1.07, 2.13), p < 0.012), although there were no direct effects of experimental factors on vaccination rates. Qualitative analysis suggested that logistical barriers impeded immunization rates. Risk communication and values clarification methods may contribute to increased vaccination intentions, which may, in turn, predict vaccination status if logistical barriers are also addressed.

The increased use of genomic sequencing in clinical diagnostics and therapeutics makes imperative the development of guidelines and policies about how to handle secondary findings. For reasons both practical and ethical, the creation of these guidelines must take into consideration the informed opinions of the lay public. As part of a larger Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium project, we organized a deliberative democracy (DD) session that engaged 66 participants in dialogue about the benefits and risks associated with the return of secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing. Participants were educated about the scientific and ethical aspects of the disclosure of secondary findings by experts in medical genetics and bioethics, and then engaged in facilitated discussion of policy options for the disclosure of three types of secondary findings: 1) medically actionable results; 2) adult onset disorders found in children; and 3) carrier status. Participants' opinions were collected via surveys administered one month before, immediately following, and one month after the DD session. Post DD session, participants were significantly more willing to support policies that do not allow access to secondary findings related to adult onset conditions in children (Χ2 (2, N = 62) = 13.300, p = 0.001) or carrier status (Χ2 (2, N = 60) = 11.375, p = 0.003). After one month, the level of support for the policy denying access to secondary findings regarding adult-onset conditions remained significantly higher than the pre-DD level, although less than immediately post-DD (Χ2 (1, N = 60) = 2.465, p = 0.041). Our findings suggest that education and deliberation enhance public appreciation of the scientific and ethical complexities of genome sequencing.