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.

The Genetic Discrimination Observatory: confronting novel issues in genetic discrimination.

Genetic discrimination (GD) is the differential or unfair profiling of an individual on the basis of genetic data. This article summarizes the actions of the Genetic Discrimination Observatory (GDO) in addressing GD and recent developments in GD since late 2020. It shows how GD can take many forms in today's rapidly evolving society.

Health care utilization and behavior changes after workplace genetic testing at a large US health care system.

PURPOSE: This study explored employee health behavior changes and health care utilization after workplace genetic testing (wGT). Wellness-program-associated wGT seeks to improve employee health, but the related health implications are unknown. METHODS: Employees of a large US health care system offering wGT (cancer, heart disease, and pharmacogenomics [PGx]) were sent electronic surveys. Self-reported data from those who received test results were analyzed. Descriptive statistics characterized responses, whereas logistic regression analyses explored correlates of responses to wGT. RESULTS: 53.9% (n = 418/776) of respondents (88.3% female, mean age = 44 years) reported receiving wGT results. 12.0% (n = 48/399) received results indicating increased risk (IR) of cancer, 9.5% (n = 38/398) had IR of heart disease, and 31.4% (n = 125/398) received informative PGx results. IR results for cancer and/or heart disease (n = 67) were associated with health behavior changes (adjusted odds ratio: 3.23; 95% CI 1.75, 6.13; P < .001) and health care utilization (adjusted odds ratio: 8.60; 95% CI 4.43, 17.5; P < .001). Informative PGx results (n = 125) were associated with medication changes (PGx-informative: 15.2%; PGx-uninformative: 4.8%; P = .002). CONCLUSION: This study explored employee responses to wGT, contributing to the understanding of the ethical and social implications of wGT. Receiving IR results from wGT may promote health behavior changes and health care utilization in employees.

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research.

BACKGROUND: A fundamental ethical issue in African genomics research is how socio-cultural factors impact perspectives, acceptance, and utility of genomic information, especially in stigmatizing conditions like orofacial clefts (OFCs). Previous research has shown that gatekeepers (e.g., religious, political, family or community leaders) wield considerable influence on the decision-making capabilities of their members, including health issues. Thus, their perspectives can inform the design of engagement strategies and increase exposure to the benefits of genomics testing/research. This is especially important for Africans underrepresented in genomic research. Our study aims to investigate the perspectives of gatekeepers concerning genomic risk information (GRI) in the presence of OFCs in a sub-Saharan African cohort. METHODS: Twenty-five focus group discussions (FGDs) consisting of 214 gatekeepers (religious, community, ethnic leaders, and traditional birth attendants) in Lagos, Nigeria, explored the opinions of participants on genomic risk information (GRI), OFC experience, and the possibility of involvement in collaborative decision-making in Lagos, Nigeria. Transcripts generated from audio recordings were coded and analyzed in NVivo using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes-knowledge, beliefs, and willingness to act-emerged from exploring the perspective of gatekeepers about GRI in this group. We observed mixed opinions regarding the acceptance of GRI. Many participants believed their role is to guide and support members when they receive results; this is based on the level of trust their members have in them. However, participants felt they would need to be trained by medical experts to do this. Also, religious and cultural beliefs were crucial to determining participants' understanding of OFCs and the acceptance and utilization of GRI. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating cultural sensitivity into public engagement could help develop appropriate strategies to manage conflicting ideologies surrounding genomic information in African communities. This will allow for more widespread access to the advances in genomics research in underrepresented populations. We also recommend a synergistic relationship between community health specialists/scientists, and community leaders, including spiritual providers to better understand and utilize GRI.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover). METHODS: We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia. RESULTS: Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required. CONCLUSION: While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

How should we address the inevitable harms from non-negligent variant reclassification in predictive genetic testing?

The process of interpreting genetic variants, in which experts use all available evidence to determine whether an identified variant is associated with a current or future disease, is both scientific and nevertheless subjective. In this paper, we summarize the existing evidence that any given variant could be reclassified and that such a reclassification could lead to harm. Furthermore, the racial gap in genetic databases could lead to a higher likelihood of harm for non-white patients. We also review recent legal analyses indicating it is unlikely that an individual who sues for restitution would be successful, especially in the absence of evidence of lab negligence. We then propose a compensation program for medical genetic tests to ensure that individuals who experience demonstrable harm due to a variant reclassification can be made whole financially. We conclude by discussing outstanding questions that must be answered for such a program to be feasible.

The goldilocks conundrum: Disclosing discrimination risks in informed consent.

Informed consent is a foundational ethical and legal principle in human subjects research and clinical care. Yet, there is extensive debate over how much information must be disclosed to meet ethical goals and legal requirements, especially about non-medical risks. In this online, survey-based experiment of a diverse sample of the US general population, we explored one aspect of this debate by testing whether the level of detail included in informed consent regarding genetic anti-discrimination protections alters individuals' willingness to participate in a hypothetical research study and their concerns regarding genetic discrimination. Participants were randomized to receive sample informed consent language with one of three levels of disclosure regarding the protections and limitations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Our sample (n = 1,195) had a mean age of 45.9 (SD = 17.9) years and 40% with ≤high school education. Participants were 51.3% female and 36.7% non-Hispanic White. On average, those who received consent language with none of GINA's limitations highlighted were more willing to participate than those who were warned about various gaps in GINA. They also had significantly lower perceived risk of discrimination than those presented with the most information about limitations. Our study found that providing more comprehensive information about GINA notably lessened willingness to participate in the hypothetical studies, highlighting the need for clinicians and researchers to thoughtfully consider how to disclose anti-discrimination risks in informed consent.

The persistent lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) more than a decade after passage.

PURPOSE: More than a decade after the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was passed, there is a paucity of research on the general public's awareness of GINA. This study's objective was to assess knowledge of GINA and concerns of genetic discrimination. METHODS: A quota-based sample of US adults (N = 421) was recruited via Qualtrics Research Services to complete an online survey. RESULTS: Overall, participants had a mean age of 43.1 (SD = 13.9), 51.8% identified as female, 63.1% identified as non-Hispanic White, and 38.4% had ≥4-year college degree. Respondents reported relatively low subjective knowledge of GINA (M = 3.10, SD = 1.98; 7-point Likert scale). Among respondents reporting high subjective knowledge of GINA (16.2%), 92.6% incorrectly reported or did not know that GINA does not covers life, long-term care, and disability insurance, and this number was 82.4% for auto or property insurance. Respondents were relatively likely to decline genetic testing due to concerns about results being used to determine eligibility for employment (M = 4.68, SD = 1.89) or health insurance (M = 4.94, SD = 1.73). There were few consistent demographic associations with either subjective or objective knowledge of GINA. CONCLUSION: This study highlights continued public concern about genetic discrimination and a lack of awareness and understanding of GINA and its scope of protections.

A survey of U. S. state insurance commissioners concerning genetic testing and life insurance: Redux at 27.

Nearly three decades ago, scientists set out on one of the largest research endeavors in modern history-mapping the human genome. The research not only sparked new technologies and genetic tests, but also concomitant concerns regarding ethical, legal, and social implications of the technologies. These developments ultimately resulted in an expanded role for genetic counselors to educate consumers about the possible consequences of receiving genetic test results. In particular, many individuals undergoing testing worry that the resulting information could be used by social actors, such as life insurers, in harmful ways. Because life insurance is regulated at the state level, there is significant variability across the United States in laws and enforcement protecting consumers' genetic information. This article reports the results of a survey of U.S. state insurance commissioners regarding regulation of genetic testing and life insurance. The survey builds on a 1992 survey conducted by Jean E. McEwen et al. It returns to current U.S. state insurance commissioners to investigate changes in the climate surrounding genetic information use and risks of misuse within the insurance industry. In their 1992 survey, McEwen et al. found that: (a) genetic testing was not yet perceived to pose a significant problem for insurance rating, (b) life insurers had quite a bit of legal freedom to require and use genetic test results, and (c) insurance commissioners had received few consumers' complaints about the use of genetic information. Twenty-seven years later, our survey finds an increase in regulation protecting genetic information in insurance, but at a pace much slower than that of advances in new DNA technologies. This lag in policy to match technology increases potential risks for consumers. Our study further reveals certain inconsistencies in the letter of state law protecting consumers' genetic information and how state insurance commissioners apply that law. The study also shows that despite empirical evidence in the literature demonstrating consumer fear about genetic discrimination, consumers do not report these concerns to their state insurance commissioner. We suggest genetic counselors are key stakeholders who can help fill current gaps between consumers and the insurance industry.

Referencing BRCA in hereditary cancer risk discussions: In search of an anchor in a sea of uncertainty.

As panel testing and exome sequencing are increasingly incorporated into clinical care, clinicians must grapple with how to communicate the risks and treatment decisions surrounding breast cancer genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this paper, we examine clinicians' practice of employing BRCA1 and BRCA2 to help contextualize less certain genetic information regarding cancer risk and the possible implications of this practice for patients within the context of an exome sequencing study, NCGENES. We audio-recorded return of results appointments for 14 women who participated in NCGENES, previously had breast cancer, and were suspected of having a hereditary cancer predisposition. These patients were also interviewed four weeks later regarding their understanding of their results. We found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 were held as the gold standard, where clinicians compared what is known about BRCA to the limited understanding of other breast cancer-related genes. BRCA1 and BRCA2 were used as anchors to shape patients' understandings of genetic knowledge, risk, and management, illustrating how the information clinicians provide to patients may work as an external anchor. Yet, presenting BRCA1 and BRCA2 as a means of scientific reassurance can run the risk of patients conflating knowledge about certainty of risk with degree of risk after receiving a result for a moderate penetrance gene. This can be further complicated by misperceptions of the precision of cancer predictability attributed to these or other described 'cancer genes' in public media.

Shared decision-making in vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ideally, patients' decision-making regarding surgical options should reflect myriad implicit values. The informed consent process is meant to ensure that patients' values mirror clinical decisions regarding expectations for outcomes, such as quality of life, life expectancy, and subsequent pain and suffering. However, surgeons are not always equipped to discuss patients' values. METHODS: Shared decision-making is a method that could help surgeons elicit patients' values and subsequently improve the patient's knowledge and satisfaction, among other important outcomes. Yet, several barriers hinder implementation of shared decision-making in the clinic, such as time, interpersonal characteristics, and trust. To address concerns, several tools and approaches have been developed to increase shared decision-making in the clinic. This article highlights two strategies: the three-talk model and decision aids. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making is a tool that could be especially valuable in discussions regarding elective surgery. Further research is needed to determine how best to implement shared decision-making in the surgical setting. Without full integration of patients' values into discussions of surgical options, there will continue to be a disconnect between the surgical procedures, outcomes, and patients' values.

Analysis of state laws on informed consent for clinical genetic testing in the era of genomic sequencing.

This article assesses the adequacy of informed consent to clinical genetic testing laws based on an examination of 15 states with institutions that had been involved in a National Institutes of Health-supported Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium project. We identified relevant statutory provisions through a legal search engine and included statutes that describe the informed consent requirements for clinical genetic testing and/or the protections for genetic material, information, or data. We found that statutory definitions were often limited in problematic ways, such as focusing only on variants known to be associated with disease or negative health effects or associated with asymptomatic disease. Some statutes required complex levels of detail if applied to genomic technologies and set confusing disclosure standards for current use and future access. Others had exceptions from informed consent requirements for future research use, limited requirements for the destruction of specimens as opposed to derived data, or linked key definitional components to the evolving concept of "identifiability." Further reform and research are needed to ensure that state law protections advance as rapidly as the science they aspire to enable.

Age and perceived risks and benefits of preventive genomic screening.

PURPOSE: As genome sequencing moves from research to clinical practice, sequencing technologies focused on "medically actionable" targets are being promoted for preventive screening despite the dearth of systematic evidence of risks and benefits and of criteria for selection of screening subjects. This study investigates researchers' and research participants' perceptions of these issues within the context of a preventive genomic screening study, GeneScreen. METHODS: We recorded researcher deliberations regarding age eligibility criteria and the risks and benefits of screening, and conducted interviews with 50 GeneScreen participants about their motivations for joining and their perceptions of risks and benefits. RESULTS: Researchers made assumptions about who would want and benefit from screening based on age. After discussion, researchers opted not to have an upper age limit for enrollment. Participants of all ages perceived similar benefits, including prevention, treatment, and cascade testing, and similar risks, such as insurance discrimination and worry. CONCLUSION: While clinical benefits of preventive genomic screening for older adults are debatable, our respondents perceived a range of benefits of screening in both clinical and research settings. Researchers and clinicians should carefully consider decisions about whether to exclude older adults and whether to provide information about benefits and risks across age groups.

The Genetic Information Privacy Act: Drawbacks and Limitations.

This Viewpoint discusses proposed and enacted state legislation to protect genetic privacy for those participating in direct-to-consumer genetic testing and ensuring genetic antidiscrimination for life, health, long-term care, and disability insurance.

TANTAMOUNT TO FRAUD?: EXPLORING NON-DISCLOSURE OF GENETIC INFORMATION IN LIFE INSURANCE APPLICATIONS AS GROUNDS FOR POLICY RESCISSION.

Many genetic counselors recommend that individuals secure desired insurance policies, such as life insurance, prior to undergoing predictive genetic testing. It has been argued, however, that this practice is "tantamount to fraud" and that failure to disclose genetic test results, or conspiring to secure a policy before testing, opens an individual up to legal recourse. This debate traps affected individuals in a Catch-22. If they apply for life insurance and disclose a genetic test result, they may be denied. If they apply without disclosing the information, they may have committed fraud. The consequences of life insurance fraud are significant: If fraud is found on an application, a life insurer can rescind the policy, in some cases even after the individual has passed away. Such a rescission could leave family members or beneficiaries without the benefits of the life insurance policy payment after the individual's death and place them in in economic difficulty. Although it is clear that lying in response to a direct question about genetic testing would be tantamount to fraud, few, if any, life insurance applications currently include broad questions about genetic testing. This paper investigates whether non-disclosure of unasked for genetic information constitutes fraud and explores varying types of insurance questions that could conceivably be interpreted as seeking genetic information. Life insurance applicants generally have no duty to disclose unasked for information, including genetic information, on an application. However, given the complexities of genetic information, individuals may be exposed to fraud and rescission of their life insurance policy despite honest attempts to truthfully and completely answer all application questions.

Genetic information, non-discrimination, and privacy protections in genetic counseling practice.

The passage of the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act (GINA) was hailed as a pivotal achievement that was expected to calm the fears of both patients and research participants about the potential misuse of genetic information. However, 6 years later, patient and provider awareness of legal protections at both the federal and state level remains discouragingly low, thereby, limiting their potential effectiveness. The increasing demand for genetic testing will expand the number of individuals and families who could benefit from obtaining accurate information about the privacy and anti-discriminatory protections that GINA and other laws extend. In this paper we describe legal protections that are applicable to individuals seeking genetic counseling, review the literature on patient and provider fears of genetic discrimination and examine their awareness and understandings of existing laws, and summarize how genetic counselors currently discuss genetic discrimination. We then present three genetic counseling cases to illustrate issues of genetic discrimination and provide relevant information on applicable legal protections. Genetic counselors have an unprecedented opportunity, as well as the professional responsibility, to disseminate accurate knowledge about existing legal protections to their patients. They can strengthen their effectiveness in this role by achieving a greater knowledge of current protections including being able to identify specific steps that can help protect genetic information.