Suchergebnisse

The scientific and public health benefits of mandatory data-sharing mechanisms must be actively demonstrated. To this end, we manually reviewed 2724 data access requests approved between June 2007 and August 2010 through the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database of genotypes and phenotypes (dbGaP). Our analysis demonstrates that dbGaP enables a wide range of secondary research by investigators from academic, governmental, and nonprofit and for-profit institutions in the United States and abroad. However, limitations in public reporting preclude the tracing of outcomes from secondary research to longer-term translational benefit.

Researchers and policymakers recommend communicating summary research results to biobank participants when feasible. To date, however, there have been few explorations of participant preferences for dedicating resources to this activity. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of a genetic medicine biobank. Participants were interviewed by phone about their motivation for participation, and opinions about the allocation of resources to communicating summary results. De-identified transcripts were used for a directed content analysis. Most biobank participation was altruistic. All participants were not only interested in receiving summary results but also expressed a clear preference for allocating limited funds to conducting additional genetic research. The results suggest that participants have a nuanced view about the allocation of biobank resources to returning summary results, and asking their opinion is a valuable exercise. Researchers may benefit from transparency about research goals and involving biobank participants in decisions about return of summary results.

Few studies or investigators involved in community-engaged research or community-based participatory research have examined awareness and adoption of federal regulatory mechanisms. We conducted a survey of investigators affiliated with the 10 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities. A questionnaire designed to capture experience with the conduct and oversight of community-engaged research, and awareness of pertinent regulatory mechanisms, including Federalwide Assurances (FWAs), Individual Investigator Agreements (IIAs), and Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreements (IAAs), was completed by 101 respondents (68% response rate). Although most were aware of FWAs, only a minority of those surveyed reported knowledge of IAAs and IIAs and even fewer had used them in their research with community partners. Implications for future training and oversight are discussed.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions has been proposed as a mechanism to reduce health disparities. Analysis of how race and ethnicity influence decision-making to receive screening can inform recruitment efforts and more equitable population screening design. A study at the University of Washington Medicine that invited unselected patients to participate in genetic screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes provided an opportunity to evaluate these factors. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We analyzed screening enrollee survey data to understand factors most important and least important in decision-making about screening overall and across different race and ethnicity groups. Electronic health record race and ethnicity and survey-reported race and ethnicity were compared to assist with interpretation. Comments provided about reasons for not enrolling in screening were analyzed using content analysis. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Overall, learning about disease risk and identifying risk early for prevention purposes were important factors in decision-making to receive screening, and regrets about screening and screening being against one's moral code were not viewed as important. Although racial identity was challenging to assign in all cases, compared to other enrollees, African-American and Asian enrollees considered test accuracy and knowing more about the test to be of greater importance. Three themes emerged related to nonparticipation: benefits do not outweigh risks, don't want to know, and challenges with study logistics. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our results highlight important motivators for receiving screening and areas that can be addressed to increase screening interest and accessibility. This knowledge can inform future population screening program design including recruitment and education approaches.

The Cancer Genetics Network (CGN) is one of a growing number of large-scale registries designed to facilitate investigation of genetic and environmental contributions to health and disease. Despite compelling scientific and social justice arguments that recommend diverse participation in biomedical research, members of ethnic minority groups continue to be chronically underrepresented in such projects. The CGN studies reported in this issue used strategies well documented to increase minority participation in research activities, including use of community-targeted materials, addressing community trust concerns, and the adoption of personalized and flexible research protocols. Here, we review the outcome of these efforts to increase minority recruitment to the CGN, and ask what lessons the findings suggest for future minority recruitment initiatives.

The ethics of returning nonactionable genetic research results to individuals are unclear. Apolipoprotein L1 ( APOL1) genetic variants are nonactionable, predominantly found in people of West African ancestry, and contribute to kidney disease disparities. To inform ethical research practice, we interviewed researchers, clinicians, and African American community members ( n  =  76) about the potential risks and benefits of returning APOL1 research results. Stakeholders strongly supported returning APOL1 results. Benefits include reciprocity for participants, community education and rebuilding trust in research, and expectation of future actionability. Risks include analytic validity, misunderstanding, psychological burdens, stigma and discrimination, and questionable resource tradeoffs. Conclusions: APOL1 results should be offered to participants. Responsibly fulfilling this offer requires careful identification of best communication practices, broader education about the topic, and ongoing community engagement.

Recruiting research participants based on genetic information generated about them in a prior study is a potentially powerful way to study the functional significance of human genetic variation. However, it also presents significant ethical challenges that, to date, have received only minimal consideration. We convened a multi-disciplinary workshop to discuss key issues relevant to the conduct and oversight of genotype-driven recruitment and to translate those considerations into practical policy recommendations. Workshop participants were invited from around the U.S., and included genomic researchers and study coordinators, research participants, clinicians, bioethics scholars, experts in human research protections, and government representatives. Discussion was directed by experienced facilitators and informed by empirical data collected in a national survey of IRB chairs and in-depth interviews with research participants in studies where genotype-driven recontact occurred. A high degree of consensus was attained on the resulting 7 recommendations, which cover informed consent disclosures and choices, the process for how and by whom participants are recontacted, the disclosure of individual genetic research results, and the importance of tailoring approaches based on specific contextual factors. These recommendations are intended to represent a balanced approach—protecting research participants, yet avoiding overly restrictive policies that hinder advancement on important scientific questions.

As genetic research is increasingly conducted in children, it is important to understand how parents make decisions about enrolling their children and what they think about receiving their children's genetic research results. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 23 parents of children enrolled in genetic studies of autism or diabetes. Qualitative thematic analysis focused on two important components of genetic research and genotype-driven recruitment: Participation in genetic research and return of results. Our findings suggest that parents' preferences and perspectives may be specific to their child's disease and the needs of the family as a whole. Assessing the expectations of target research populations will be beneficial for developing best practices for pediatric genetic research, return of results, and genotype-driven recruitment.

No consensus exists about when researchers need additional participant consent (re-consent) to submit existing data to the federal database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). Re-consent for submission of their data to dbGaP was sought from 1,340 study participants, 1,159 (86%) of whom agreed. We invited the first 400 of those who agreed to complete a telephone survey about their reasoning for their consent decision and their satisfaction with the re-consent process; 365 participants completed the survey. Respondents reported that it was very (69%) or somewhat (21%) important that they were asked for their permission. Many respondents considered alternatives to consent, such as notification-only or opt-out, to be unacceptable (67% and 40%, respectively). These results suggest that re-consent for dbGaP deposition may be advisable in certain cases to anticipate and honor participant preferences.

Introduction: In the USA, patients who undergo genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk are responsible for informing relatives about their genetic test results, but many relatives never find out they might be at risk. A health system-mediated relative notification program might help fill this gap, but questions remain about the acceptability of this approach. Methods: We analyzed qualitative data from a single-arm, nonrandomized, mixed-methods study to understand how patients and families experienced a new health system-mediated relative notification program. We invited all study participants to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews at 6–8 weeks after return of genetic test results. We used a template analysis approach to thematically analyze interview transcripts. Results: We interviewed 32 participants, including 17 probands and 15 relatives. Relatives reported positive experiences with the notification program, noting they felt in control of decisions and appreciated genetic counselor involvement in communicating the proband's test results. Benefits of direct contact included reduced burden for probands, increased family discussions about health, and notification of relatives who otherwise would not have learned results. No participants reported adverse effects from the program. Conclusion: Overall, the relative notification program was acceptable to participants and supported probands in reaching at-risk relatives who otherwise might not have been notified. These findings could inform the implementation of future genetic risk family notification programs with the potential to improve uptake of cascade testing and advance cancer prevention and early detection efforts.