Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for pediatric diagnostic testing.

PURPOSE: Measuring the effects of genomic sequencing (GS) on patients and families is critical for translational research. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess parents' perceived utility of pediatric diagnostic GS. METHODS: Informed by a 5-domain conceptual model, the study comprised 5 steps: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Parents of pediatric patients who had received results of clinically indicated GS participated in structured cognitive interviews and 2 rounds of surveys. After eliminating items based on theory and quantitative performance, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments. RESULTS: We derived the 21-item Pediatric Diagnostic version of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale, which has a 2-factor structure that includes an Informational Utility subscale (16 items, α = 0.91) and an Emotional Utility subscale (5 items, α = 0.71). Scores can be summed to calculate a Total scale score (α = 0.87). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS, and the Emotional Utility subscale was moderately associated with psychosocial impact and depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: The pediatric diagnostic GENE-U scale demonstrated good psychometric performance in this initial evaluation and could be a useful tool for translational genomics researchers, warranting additional validation.

Ethical and Legal Issues Surrounding Genetic Testing in the NICU.

Clinicians practicing in a modern NICU are noticing an increase in the proportion of patients who undergo genetic testing as well as changes in the types of genetic testing patients receive. These trends are not surprising given the increasing recognition of the genetic causes of neonatal illness and recent advances in genetic technology. Yet, the expansion of genetic testing in the NICU also raises a number of ethical questions. In this article, we will review the ethical issues raised by genetic testing, with a focus on the practical implications for neonatologists. First, we outline the complexities of measuring benefit, or utility, for neonatal genetic testing. Next, we discuss potential harms such as inequity, unexpected findings, disability biases, and legal risks. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of ethical issues related to consent for genetic testing. Throughout this article, we highlight solutions to challenges toward the ultimate goal of minimizing harms and maximizing the substantial potential benefits of genetic medicine in the NICU.

Moving to the Middle Ground: Redefining Genomic Utility to Expand Understanding of Familial Benefit.

Translational research has tended to ignore the question of whether receiving a genomic diagnosis provides utility in community care contexts outside of doctors' offices and hospitals. However, empirical research with parents has highlighted numerous ways that a genomic diagnosis might be of practical value in the care provided by teachers, physical or occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, behavior analysts, and nonphysician mental health providers. In this essay, we propose a new conceptual model of genomic utility that offers the opportunity to better capture a broad range of potential implications of genomic technologies for families in various social and organizational systems. We explore crucial research directions to better understand how redefined utility might affect families and nonphysician professionals.

The Parent PrU: A measure to assess personal utility of pediatric genomic results.

PURPOSE: We aimed to adapt and validate an existing patient-reported outcome measure, the personal-utility (PrU) scale, for use in the pediatric genomic context. METHODS: We adapted the adult version of the PrU and obtained feedback from 6 parents whose child had undergone sequencing. The resulting measure, the Parent PrU, was administered to parents of children in 4 pediatric cohorts of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium after they received their children's genomic results. We investigated the measure's structural validity and internal consistency. RESULTS: We conducted a principal-axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation on data from 755 participants to determine structural validity. These analyses yielded a 3-factor solution, accounting for 76% of the variance in the 16 items. We used Cronbach's α to assess the internal consistency of each factor: (1) child benefits (α = .95), (2) affective parent benefits (α = .90), and (3) parent control (α = .94). CONCLUSION: Our evidence suggests that the Parent PrU scale has potential as a measure for assessing parent-reported personal utility of their children's genomic results. Additional research is needed to further validate the Parent PrU scale, including by comparing its findings with utility assessments reported by clinicians and children themselves.

Parents' Perspectives on the Utility of Genomic Sequencing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: It is critical to understand the wide-ranging clinical and non-clinical effects of genome sequencing (GS) for parents in the NICU context. We assessed parents' experiences with GS as a first-line diagnostic tool for infants with suspected genetic conditions in the NICU. METHODS: Parents of newborns (N = 62) suspected of having a genetic condition were recruited across five hospitals in the southeast United States as part of the SouthSeq study. Semi-structured interviews (N = 78) were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive, negative, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews. RESULTS: Key themes included that (1) GS in infancy is important for reproductive decision making, preparing for the child's future care, ending the diagnostic odyssey, and sharing results with care providers; (2) the timing of disclosure was acceptable for most parents, although many reported the NICU environment was overwhelming; and (3) parents deny that receiving GS results during infancy exacerbated parent-infant bonding, and reported variable impact on their feelings of guilt. CONCLUSION: Parents reported that GS during the neonatal period was useful because it provided a "backbone" for their child's care. Parents did not consistently endorse negative impacts like interference with parent-infant bonding.

Concordance of International Regulation of Pediatric Health Research.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparability of international ethics principles and practices used in regulating pediatric research as a first step in determining whether reciprocal deference for international ethics review is feasible. Prior studies by the authors focused on other aspects of international health research, such as biobanks and direct-to-participant genomic research. The unique nature of pediatric research and its distinctive regulation by many countries warranted a separate study. STUDY DESIGN: A representative sample of 21 countries was selected, with geographical, ethnic, cultural, political, and economic diversity. A leading expert on pediatric research ethics and law was selected to summarize the ethics review of pediatric research in each country. To ensure the comparability of the responses, a 5-part summary of pediatric research ethics principles in the US was developed by the investigators and distributed to all country representatives. The international experts were asked to assess and describe whether principles in their country and the US were congruent. Results were obtained and compiled in the spring and summer of 2022. RESULTS: Some of the countries varied in their conceptualization or description of one or more ethical principles for pediatric research, but overall, the countries in the study demonstrated a fundamental concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Similar regulation of pediatric research in 21 countries suggests that international reciprocity is a viable strategy.

Words matter: The language of difference in human genetics.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients.

Return of non-ACMG recommended incidental genetic findings to pediatric patients: considerations and opportunities from experiences in genomic sequencing.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of exome/genome sequencing has introduced unexpected testing results (incidental findings) that have become a major challenge for both testing laboratories and providers. While the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has outlined guidelines for laboratory management of clinically actionable secondary findings, debate remains as to whether incidental findings should be returned to patients, especially those representing pediatric populations. METHODS: The Sequencing Analysis and Diagnostic Yield working group in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium has collected a cohort of pediatric patients found to harbor a genomic sequencing-identified non-ACMG-recommended incidental finding. The incidental variants were not thought to be associated with the indication for testing and were disclosed to patients and families. RESULTS: In total, 23 "non-ACMG-recommended incidental findings were identified in 21 pediatric patients included in the study. These findings span four different research studies/laboratories and demonstrate differences in incidental finding return rate across study sites. We summarize specific cases to highlight core considerations that surround identification and return of incidental findings (uncertainty of disease onset, disease severity, age of onset, clinical actionability, and personal utility), and suggest that interpretation of incidental findings in pediatric patients can be difficult given evolving phenotypes. Furthermore, return of incidental findings can benefit patients and providers, but do present challenges. CONCLUSIONS: While there may be considerable benefit to return of incidental genetic findings, these findings can be burdensome to providers and present risk to patients. It is important that laboratories conducting genomic testing establish internal guidelines in anticipation of detection. Moreover, cross-laboratory guidelines may aid in reducing the potential for policy heterogeneity across laboratories as it relates to incidental finding detection and return. However, future discussion is required to determine whether cohesive guidelines or policy statements are warranted.

Data sharing and community-engaged research.

Data sharing must be accompanied by responsibility sharing.

Addressing underrepresentation in genomics research through community engagement.

The vision of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is that people everywhere will realize the benefits of human genetics and genomics. Implicit in that vision is the importance of ensuring that the benefits of human genetics and genomics research are realized in ways that minimize harms and maximize benefits, a goal that can only be achieved through focused efforts to address health inequities and increase the representation of underrepresented communities in genetics and genomics research. This guidance is intended to advance community engagement as an approach that can be used across the research lifecycle. Community engagement uniquely offers researchers in human genetics and genomics an opportunity to pursue that vision successfully, including by addressing underrepresentation in genomics research.

Newborn screening for neurodevelopmental diseases: Are we there yet?

In the US, newborn screening (NBS) is a unique health program that supports health equity and screens virtually every baby after birth, and has brought timely treatments to babies since the 1960's. With the decreasing cost of sequencing and the improving methods to interpret genetic data, there is an opportunity to add DNA sequencing as a screening method to facilitate the identification of babies with treatable conditions that cannot be identified in any other scalable way, including highly penetrant genetic neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). However, the lack of effective dietary or drug-based treatments has made it nearly impossible to consider NDDs in the current NBS framework, yet it is anticipated that any treatment will be maximally effective if started early. Hence there is a critical need for large scale pilot studies to assess if and how NDDs can be effectively screened at birth, if parents desire that information, and what impact early diagnosis may have. Here we attempt to provide an overview of the recent advances in NDD treatments, explore the possible framework of setting up a pilot study to genetically screen for NDDs, highlight key technical, practical, and ethical considerations and challenges, and examine the policy and health system implications.

Streamlining ethics review for international health research.

Single-site review means protection and efficiency.

Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing: Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis of a Conceptual Model to Inform Patient-Centered Instrument Development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds. METHODS: We took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback. RESULTS: Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each. CONCLUSION: We present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Practice Patterns: A Survey of Kentucky Pediatric Providers.

OBJECTIVE: Kentucky ranks among the highest in the nation for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prevalence in children aged 4 to 17 years. In 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a clinical practice guideline based on the DSM-IV. A guideline revision based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-5) was released in October 2019. In this study, we assess and describe pediatric providers' ADHD practices using the 2011 guideline and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, survey-based descriptive study. Kentucky Chapter of the AAP (KY AAP) members were anonymously surveyed. The results were examined for trends in routine practice. RESULTS: Fifty-eight general pediatricians and pediatric residents responded to the survey, yielding a 38% (58/154) response rate. Among respondents performing routine diagnosis of ADHD (N = 51), 73% (37/51) used DSM-5 criteria. Most providers usually or always initially assessed for coexisting behavioral conditions (96%; 49/51), developmental conditions (78%; 39/51), and adverse childhood experiences (73%; 37/51). Among respondents performing routine management of ADHD (N = 55), only 11% (6/55) of respondents indicated that they titrated stimulant medications every 3 to 7 days. After initiation of medication, 78% of providers scheduled a follow-up visit within 2 to 4 weeks. During subsequent visits, only half indicated discussing behavioral interventions, screening for coexisting conditions, and reviewing follow-up teacher-rated ADHD scales. CONCLUSION: Pediatricians in the KY AAP adhere to the DSM-5 criteria for diagnosing ADHD. Pediatric providers' practices would benefit from education in improvements in pharmacotherapy titration, surveillance of coexisting conditions associated with ADHD, discussion of psychosocial interventions, and school support strategies.

Genome sequencing as a first-line diagnostic test for hospitalized infants.

PURPOSE: SouthSeq is a translational research study that undertook genome sequencing (GS) for infants with symptoms suggestive of a genetic disorder. Recruitment targeted racial/ethnic minorities and rural, medically underserved areas in the Southeastern United States, which are historically underrepresented in genomic medicine research. METHODS: GS and analysis were performed for 367 infants to detect disease-causal variation concurrent with standard of care evaluation and testing. RESULTS: Definitive diagnostic (DD) or likely diagnostic (LD) genetic findings were identified in 30% of infants, and 14% of infants harbored an uncertain result. Only 43% of DD/LD findings were identified via concurrent clinical genetic testing, suggesting that GS testing is better for obtaining early genetic diagnosis. We also identified phenotypes that correlate with the likelihood of receiving a DD/LD finding, such as craniofacial, ophthalmologic, auditory, skin, and hair abnormalities. We did not observe any differences in diagnostic rates between racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: We describe one of the largest-to-date GS cohorts of ill infants, enriched for African American and rural patients. Our results show the utility of GS because it provides early-in-life detection of clinically relevant genetic variations not detected by current clinical genetic testing, particularly for infants exhibiting certain phenotypic features.

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking. METHODS: Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them. RESULTS: CSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

Conceptualization of utility in translational clinical genomics research.

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.

Employees' Views and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Assessment of Voluntary Workplace Genomic Testing.

Employers have begun to offer voluntary workplace genomic testing (wGT) as part of employee wellness benefit programs, but few empirical studies have examined the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of wGT. To better understand employee perspectives on wGT, employees were surveyed at a large biomedical research institution. Survey respondents were presented with three hypothetical scenarios for accessing health-related genomic testing: via (1) their doctor; (2) their workplace; and 3) a commercial direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing company. Overall, 594 employees (28%) responded to the survey. Respondents indicated a preference for genomic testing in the workplace setting (70%; 95% CI 66-74%), followed by doctor's office (54%; 95% CI 50-58%), and DTC testing (20%; 95% CI 17-24%). Prior to participating in wGT, respondents wanted to know about confidentiality of test results (79%), existence of relevant laws and policies (70%), and privacy protection (64%). Across scenarios, 92% of respondents preferred to view the test results with a genetic counselor. These preliminary results suggest that many employees are interested and even prefer genetic testing in the workplace and would prefer testing with support from genetic health professionals. Confirmation in more diverse employer settings will be needed to generalize such findings.