Equity, diversity, and inclusion at the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health.

A lack of diversity in genomics for health continues to hinder equitable leadership and access to precision medicine approaches for underrepresented populations. To avoid perpetuating biases within the genomics workforce and genomic data collection practices, equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) must be addressed. This paper documents the journey taken by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (a genomics-based standard-setting and policy-framing organization) to create a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive environment for its standards and members. Initial steps include the creation of two groups: the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Advisory Group and the Regulatory and Ethics Diversity Group. Following a framework that we call "Reflected in our Teams, Reflected in our Standards," both groups address EDI at different stages in their policy development process.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

Engaged genomic science produces better and fairer outcomes: an engagement framework for engaging and involving participants, patients and publics in genomics research and healthcare implementation.

Genomic science is increasingly central to the provision of health care. Producing and applying robust genomics knowledge is a complex endeavour in which no single individual, profession, discipline or community holds all the answers.  Engagement and involvement of diverse stakeholders can support alignment of societal and scientific interests, understandings and perspectives and promises better science and fairer outcomes. In this context we argue for F.A.I.R.E.R. data and data use that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reproducible, Equitable and Responsible. Yet there is a paucity of international guidance on how to engage publics, patients and participants in genomics. To support meaningful and effective engagement and involvement we developed an Engagement Framework for involving and engaging participants, patients and publics in genomics research and health implementation. The Engagement Framework is intended to support all those working in genomics research, medicine, and healthcare to deliberatively consider approaches to participant, patient and public engagement and involvement in their work. Through a series of questions, the Engagement Framework prompts new ways of thinking about the aims and purposes of engagement, and support reflection on the strengths, limitations, likely outcomes and impacts of choosing different approaches to engagement. To guide genomics activities, we describe four themes and associated questions for deliberative reflection: (i) fairness; (ii) context; (iii) heterogeneity, and (iv) recognising tensions and conflict. The four key components in the Engagement provide a framework to assist those involved in genomics to reflect on decisions they make for their initiatives, including the strategies selected, the participant, patient and public stakeholders engaged, and the anticipated goals. The Engagement Framework is one step in an actively evolving process of building genomics research and implementation cultures which foster responsible leadership and are attentive to objectives which increase equality, diversity and inclusion in participation and outcomes.

Maternal glucose homeostasis is impaired in mouse models of gestational cholestasis.

Women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP), a disorder characterised by raised serum bile acids, are at increased risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus and have impaired glucose tolerance whilst cholestatic. FXR and TGR5 are modulators of glucose metabolism, and FXR activity is reduced in normal pregnancy, and further in ICP. We aimed to investigate the role of raised serum bile acids, FXR and TGR5 in gestational glucose metabolism using mouse models. Cholic acid feeding resulted in reduced pancreatic ß-cell proliferation and increased apoptosis in pregnancy, without altering insulin sensitivity, suggesting that raised bile acids affect ß-cell mass but are insufficient to impair glucose tolerance. Conversely, pregnant Fxr-/- and Tgr5-/- mice are glucose intolerant and have reduced insulin secretion in response to glucose challenge, and Fxr-/- mice are also insulin resistant. Furthermore, fecal bile acids are reduced in pregnant Fxr-/- mice. Lithocholic acid and deoxycholic acid, the principal ligands for TGR5, are decreased in particular. Therefore, we propose that raised serum bile acids and reduced FXR and TGR5 activity contribute to the altered glucose metabolism observed in ICP.

Black and Minority Ethnic women's decision-making for risk reduction strategies after BRCA testing: Use of context and knowledge.

Within the field of breast cancer care, women concerned about their family history are offered genetic testing and subsequent treatment options based on several factors which include but are not limited to personal and family cancer disease histories and clinical guidelines. Discussions around decision-making in genetics in Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups are rarely documented in literature, and information regarding interactions with genetics services is usually discussed and linked to lack of scientific knowledge. As such, counselling sessions based only on scientific and medical information miss out the many reasons participants consider in making health decisions, information which can be used to encourage BME women to engage in cancer genetics services. 10 BME women with a mixed personal and family history of breast and ovarian cancer backgrounds, were interviewed in a study exploring issues of knowledge about familial breast cancer syndromes, to understand how they created and used familial knowledge for health decisions, with a particular focus on attitudes towards risk reducing strategies. Study results show that our participants are not unique in the ways they make decisions towards the use of cancer genetics and risk reduction strategies and as such, there are no specific ethnically defined pathways for decision-making. Our participants demonstrated mixed biomedical, social and individual cultural reasons for their decision-making towards risk reduction surgeries and treatment options which are similar to women from different ethnicities and are individual rather than group-specific. Narratives about suspicion of scientific utility of genetic knowledge, the perceived predictive value of mutations for future cancers or the origin of mutations and family disease patterns feature heavily in how participants evaluated genetic information and treatment decisions. The diversity of results shows that our participants are interested in engaging with genetic information but use multiple sources for evaluating the extent of involvement in genetic services and the place of genetic information and treatment options for themselves and their families. Genetic information is considered within various bio-social scenarios before decision-making for risk reduction is undertaken. BME women are shown to undertake evaluative processes which clinicians are encouraged to explore for better patient support. Continuing to focus on links between superficial and un-representative meanings of ethnicity, ethnic identity and attitudes and behaviours by only searching for differences between ethnic groups, are unhelpful in further understanding how women from those diverse backgrounds make decisions towards risk reduction interventions. Future research must find ways of investigating and understanding populations in ways that are not focussed solely on ethnic differences but on how meaning is created out of social circumstances and experiences.

Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?

The dominant, individualistic understanding of autonomy that features in clinical practice and research is underpinned by the idea that people are, in their ideal form, independent, self-interested and rational gain-maximising decision-makers. In recent decades, this paradigm has been challenged from various disciplinary and intellectual directions. Proponents of 'relational autonomy' in particular have argued that people's identities, needs, interests - and indeed autonomy - are always also shaped by their relations to others. Yet, despite the pronounced and nuanced critique directed at an individualistic understanding of autonomy, this critique has had very little effect on ethical and legal instruments in clinical practice and research so far. In this article, we use four case studies to explore to what extent, if at all, relational autonomy can provide solutions to ethical and practical problems in clinical practice and research. We conclude that certain forms of relational autonomy can have a tangible and positive impact on clinical practice and research. These solutions leave the ultimate decision to the person most affected, but encourage and facilitate the consideration of this person's care and responsibility for connected others.

The metabolic profile of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is associated with impaired glucose tolerance, dyslipidemia, and increased fetal growth.

OBJECTIVE: Quantification of changes in glucose and lipid concentrations in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) and uncomplicated pregnancy and study of their influence on fetal growth. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective study comparing metabolic outcomes in cholestastic and uncomplicated singleton pregnancies was undertaken at two university hospitals in the U.K. and U.S. from 2011-2014. A total of 26 women with ICP and 27 control pregnancies with no prior history of gestational diabetes mellitus were recruited from outpatient antenatal services and followed until delivery. Alterations in glucose, incretins, cholesterol, and triglycerides were studied using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system and/or a standard glucose tolerance test (GTT) in conjunction with GLP-1 and a fasting lipid profile. Fetal growth was quantified using adjusted birth centiles. RESULTS: Maternal blood glucose concentrations were significantly increased in ICP during ambulatory CGM (P < 0.005) and following a GTT (P < 0.005). ICP is characterized by increased fasting triglycerides (P < 0.005) and reduced HDL cholesterol (P < 0.005), similar to changes observed in metabolic syndrome. The offspring of mothers with ICP had significantly larger customized birth weight centiles, adjusted for ethnicity, sex, and gestational age (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: ICP is associated with impaired glucose tolerance, dyslipidemia, and increased fetal growth. These findings may have implications regarding the future health of affected offspring.