PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-8 (8)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  How could disclosing incidental information from whole-genome sequencing affect patient behavior? 
Personalized medicine  2013;10(4):10.2217/pme.13.24.
In this article, we argue that disclosure of incidental findings from whole-genome sequencing has the potential to motivate individuals to change health behaviors through psychological mechanisms that differ from typical risk assessment interventions. Their ability to do so, however, is likely to be highly contingent upon the nature of the incidental findings and how they are disclosed, the context of the disclosure and the characteristics of the patient. Moreover, clinicians need to be aware that behavioral responses may occur in unanticipated ways. This article argues for commentators and policy makers to take a cautious but optimistic perspective while empirical evidence is collected through ongoing research involving whole-genome sequencing and the disclosure of incidental information.
doi:10.2217/pme.13.24
PMCID: PMC3852635  PMID: 24319470
contextual factor; health behavior; incidental finding; whole-genome sequencing
2.  Disclosing Individual CDKN2A Research Results to Melanoma Survivors: Interest, Impact, and Demands on Researchers 
Background
Whether to return individual research results from cancer genetics studies is widely debated, but little is known about how participants respond to results disclosure or about its time and cost burdens on investigators.
Methods
We recontacted participants at one site of a multicenter genetic epidemiologic study regarding their CDKN2A gene test results and implications for melanoma risk. Interested participants were disclosed their results by telephone and followed for 3 months.
Results
Among 39 patients approached, 27 were successfully contacted, and 19 (70% uptake) sought results, including three with mutations. Prior to disclosure, participants endorsed numerous benefits of receiving results (mean = 7.7 of 9 posed), including gaining information relevant to their children’s disease risk. Mean psychological well-being scores did not change from baseline, and no decreases to melanoma prevention behaviors were noted. Fifty-nine percent of participants reported that disclosure made participation in future research more likely. Preparation for disclosure required 40 minutes and $611 per recontact attempt. An additional 78 minutes and $68 was needed to disclose results.
Conclusion
Cancer epidemiology research participants who received their individual genetic research results showed no evidence of psychological harm or false reassurance from disclosure and expressed strong trust in the accuracy of results. Burdens to our investigators were high, but protocols may differ in their demands and disclosure may increase participants’ willingness to enroll in future studies.
Impact
Providing individual study results to cancer genetics research participants poses potential challenges for investigators, but many participants desire and respond positively to this information.
doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1045
PMCID: PMC3833711  PMID: 21307304
3.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an assessment of genetic counselors' knowledge and beliefs 
Purpose
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a new means of obtaining genetic testing outside of a traditional clinical setting. This study assesses genetic counselors’ experience, knowledge, and beliefs regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing for tests that would currently be offered in genetics clinics.
Methods
Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors completed a web-administered survey in February 2008.
Results
Response rate was 36%; the final data analysis included 312 respondents. Eighty-three percent of respondents had two or fewer inquiries about direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and 14% had received requests for test interpretation or discussion. Respondents believed that genetic counselors have a professional obligation to be knowledgeable about direct-to-consumer genetic testing (55%) and interpret results (48%). Fifty-one percent of respondents thought genetic testing should be limited to a clinical setting; 56% agreed direct-to-consumer genetic testing is acceptable if genetic counseling is provided. More than 70% of respondents would definitely or possibly consider direct-to-consumer testing for patients who (1) have concerns about genetic discrimination, (2) want anonymous testing, or (3) have geographic constraints.
Conclusions
Results indicate that genetic counselors have limited patient experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic testing and are cautiously considering if and under what circumstances this approach should be used
doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182011636
PMCID: PMC3804135  PMID: 21233722
4.  Community Engagement about Genetic Variation Research 
Population Health Management  2012;15(2):78-89.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to describe the methods and effectiveness of the Public Engagement in Genetic Variation and Haplotype Mapping Issues (PEGV) Project, which engaged a community in policy discussion about genetic variation research. The project implemented a 6-stage community engagement model in New Rochelle, New York. First, researchers recruited community partners. Second, the project team created community oversight. Third, focus groups discussed concerns generated by genetic variation research. Fourth, community dialogue sessions addressed focus group findings and developed policy recommendations. Fifth, a conference was held to present these policy recommendations and to provide a forum for HapMap (haplotype mapping) researchers to dialogue directly with residents. Finally, findings were disseminated via presentations and papers to the participants and to the wider community beyond. The project generated a list of proposed guidelines for genetic variation research that addressed the concerns of New Rochelle residents. Project team members expressed satisfaction with the engagement model overall but expressed concerns about how well community groups were utilized and what segment of the community actually engaged in the project. The PEGV Project represents a model for researchers to engage the general public in policy development about genetic research. There are benefits of such a process beyond the desired genetic research. (Population Health Management 2012;15:78–89)
doi:10.1089/pop.2011.0013
PMCID: PMC3363293  PMID: 21815821
5.  Using Alzheimer’s disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: Implications for personal genomics 
Clinical Genetics  2011;80(5):407-414.
Susceptibility testing for common, complex adult-onset diseases is projected to become more commonplace as the rapid pace of genomic discoveries continues, and evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of such testing is needed to inform medical practice and health policy. Apolipoprotein E (APOE) testing for risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) provides a paradigm in which to examine the process and impact of disclosing genetic susceptibility for a prevalent, severe and incurable neurological condition. This review summarizes findings from a series of multi-site randomized clinical trials examining psychological and behavioral responses to various methods of genetic risk assessment for AD using APOE disclosure. We discuss challenges involved in disease risk estimation and communication and the extent to which participants comprehend and perceive utility in their genetic risk information. Findings on the psychological impact of test results are presented (e.g., distress), along with data on participants’ health behavior and insurance purchasing responses (e.g., long term care). Finally, we report comparisons of the safety and efficacy of intensive genetic counseling approaches to briefer models that emphasize streamlined processes and educational materials. The implications of these findings for the emerging field of personal genomics are discussed, with directions identified for future research.
doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01739.x
PMCID: PMC3191239  PMID: 21696382
6.  Changes to perceptions of the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing after APOE genotyping for Alzheimer disease risk 
Purpose
Perceptions about the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing are among the best predictors of test utilization. How actual testing changes such perceptions has yet to be examined.
Methods
In a clinical trial, first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease received genetic risk assessments for Alzheimer disease including APOE disclosure. Participants rated 11 possible benefits associated with genetic testing (pros) and 10 risks or limitations (cons) before genetic risk disclosure and again 12 months afterward.
Results
Pros were rated higher than cons at baseline (3.53 vs. 1.83, P < 0.001) and at 12 months after risk disclosure (3.33 vs. 1.88, P < 0.001). Ratings of pros decreased during the 12-month period (3.33 vs. 3.53, P < 0.001). Ratings of cons did not change (1.88 vs. 1.83, P = 0.199) except for a three-item discrimination subscale which increased (2.07 vs. 1.92, P = 0.012). Among specific pros and cons, three items related to prevention and treatment changed the most.
Conclusion
The process of APOE genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease sensitizes some to its limitations and the risks of discrimination; however, 1-year after disclosure, test recipients still consider the pros to strongly outweigh the cons.
doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182076bf1
PMCID: PMC3170997  PMID: 21270636
Alzheimer; pros; cons; benefits; discrimination; genetics; risk; APOE; susceptibility testing; education
7.  Returning Individual Research Results: Development of a Cancer Genetics Education and Risk Communication Protocol 
The obligations of researchers to disclose clinically and/or personally significant individual research results are highly debated, but few empirical studies have addressed this topic. We describe the development of a protocol for returning research results to participants at one site of a multicenter study of the genetic epidemiology of melanoma. Protocol development involved numerous challenges: (1) deciding whether genotype results merited disclosure; (2) achieving an appropriate format for communicating results; (3) developing education materials; (4) deciding whether to retest samples for additional laboratory validation; (5) identifying and notifying selected participants; and (6) assessing the impact of disclosure. Our experience suggests potential obstacles depending on researcher resources and the design of the parent study, but offers a process by which researchers can responsibly return individual study results and evaluate the impact of disclosure.
doi:10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.17
PMCID: PMC3159194  PMID: 20831418
genetic testing; cancer; CDKN2A; risk communication; return of research results; protocol development
8.  Incorporating ethnicity into genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: the REVEAL study experience 
Purpose
To describe how investigators in a multisite randomized clinical trial addressed scientific and ethical issues involved in creating risk models based on genetic testing for African American participants.
Methods
The following informed our decision whether to stratify risk assessment by ethnicity: evaluation of epidemiological data, appraisal of benefits and risks of incorporating ethnicity into calculations, and feasibility of creating ethnicity-specific risk curves. Once the decision was made, risk curves were created based on data from a large, diverse study of first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease.
Results
Review of epidemiological data suggested notable differences in risk between African Americans and whites and that Apolipoprotein E genotype predicts risk in both groups. Discussions about the benefits and risks of stratified risk assessments reached consensus that estimates based on data from whites should not preclude enrolling African Americans, but population-specific risk curves should be created if feasible. Risk models specific to ethnicity, gender, and Apolipoprotein E genotype were subsequently developed for the randomized clinical trial that oversampled African Americans.
Conclusion
The Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer Disease study provides an instructive example of a process to develop risk assessment protocols that are sensitive to the implications of genetic testing for multiple ethnic groups with differing levels of risk.
doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e318164e4cf
PMCID: PMC2483343  PMID: 18344711
Alzheimer; ethnicity; genetics; risk; APOE

Results 1-8 (8)