Older Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Their Perspectives on Prognostic Information: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information is key to shared decision-making, particularly in life-limiting illness like advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVE: To understand the prognostic information preferences expressed by older patients with CKD. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study of 28 consecutively enrolled patients over 65 years of age with non-dialysis dependent CKD stages 3b-5, receiving care in a multi-disciplinary CKD clinic. APPROACH: Semi-structured telephone or in-person interviews to explore patients' preference for and perceived value of individualized prognostic information. Interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis. KEY RESULTS: We completed interviews with 28 patients (77.7 ± SD 6.8 years, 69% men). Patients varied in their preference for prognostic information and more were interested in their risk of progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) than in life expectancy. Many conflated ESKD risk with risk of death, perceiving a binary choice between dialysis and quick decline and death. Patients expressed that prognostic information would allow them to plan, take care of important business, and think about their treatment options. Patients were accepting of prognostic uncertainty and imagined leveraging it to nurture hope or motivate them to better manage risk factors. They endorsed the desire to receive prognosis of life expectancy even though it may be hard to accept or difficult to talk about but worried it could create helplessness for other patients in their situation. CONCLUSION: Most, but not all, patients were interested in prognostic information and could see its value in motivating behavior change and allowing planning. Some patients expressed concern that information on life expectancy might cause depression and hopelessness. Therefore, prognostic information is most appropriate as part of a clinical conversation that fosters shared decision-making and helps patients consider treatment risks, benefits, and burdens in context of their lives.

Lay understandings of drug-gene interactions: The right medication, the right dose, at the right time, but what are the right words?

As pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing increases in popularity, lay concepts of drug-gene interactions set the stage for shared decision making in precision medicine. Few studies explore what recipients of PGx results think is happening in their bodies when a drug-gene interaction is discovered. To characterize biobank participants' understanding of PGx research results, we conducted a focus group study, which took place after PGx variants conferring increased risk of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency were disclosed to biobank contributors. DPD deficiency confers an increased risk of adverse reaction to commonly used cancer chemotherapeutics. Ten focus groups were conducted, ranging from two to eight participants. Fifty-four individuals participated in focus groups. A framework approach was used for descriptive and explanatory analysis. Descriptive themes included participants' efforts to make sense of PGx findings as they related to: (1) health implications, (2) drugs, and (3) genetics. Explanatory analysis supplied a functional framework of how participant word choices can perform different purposes in PGx communication. Results bear three main implications for PGx research-related disclosure. First, participants' use of various terms suggest participants generally understanding their PGx results, including how positive PGx results differ from positive disease susceptibility genetic results. Second, PGx disclosure in biobanking can involve participant conflation of drug-gene interactions with allergies or other types of medical reactions. Third, the functional framework suggests a need to move beyond a deficit model of genetic literacy in PGx communication. Together, findings provide an initial evidence base for supporting bidirectional expert-recipient PGx results communication.

"Who Doesn't Like Receiving Good News?" Perspectives of Individuals Who Received Genomic Screening Results by Mail.

As genomic sequencing expands to screen larger numbers of individuals, offering genetic counseling to everyone may not be possible. One approach to managing this limitation is for a genetic counselor to communicate clinically actionable results in person or by telephone, but report other results by mail. We employed this approach in a large genomic implementation study. In this paper, we describe participants' experiences receiving genomic screening results by mail. We conducted 50 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who received neutral genomic screening results by mail. Most participants were satisfied receiving neutral results by mail. Participants generally had a good understanding of results; however, a few participants had misunderstandings about their genomic screening results, including mistaken beliefs about their disease risk and the comprehensiveness of the test. No one reported plans to alter health behaviors, defer medical evaluations, or take other actions that might be considered medically problematic. Reporting neutral results by mail is unlikely to cause recipients distress or generate misunderstandings that may result in reduced vigilance in following recommended preventive health strategies. Nonetheless, some individuals may benefit from additional genetic counseling support to help situate their results in the context of personal concerns and illness experiences.

Integrating Genomic Screening into Primary Care: Provider Experiences Caring for Latino Patients at a Community-Based Health Center.

INTRODUCTION: Minority communities have had limited access to advances in genomic medicine. Mayo Clinic and Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, partnered to assess the feasibility of offering genomic screening to Latino patients receiving care at a community-based health center. We examined primary care provider (PCP) experiences reporting genomic screening results and integrating those results into patient care. METHODS: We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and other members of the health care team charged with supporting patients who received positive genomic screening results. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Of the 500 patients who pursued genomic screening, 10 received results indicating a genetic variant that warranted clinical management. PCPs felt genomic screening was valuable to patients and their families, and that genomic research should strive to include underrepresented minorities. Providers identified multiple challenges integrating genomic sequencing into patient care, including difficulties maintaining patient contact over time; arranging follow-up medical care; and managing results in an environment with limited genetics expertise. Providers also reflected on the ethics of offering genomic sequencing to patients who may not be able to pursue diagnostic testing or follow-up care due to financial constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the potential benefits and challenges of bringing advances in precision medicine to community-based health centers serving under-resourced populations. By proactively considering patient support needs, and identifying financial assistance programs and patient-referral mechanisms to support patients who may need specialized medical care, PCPs and other health care providers can help to ensure that precision medicine lives up to its full potential as a tool for improving patient care.

Experiences of Latino Participants Receiving Neutral Genomic Screening Results: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to characterize experiences of Latino participants receiving genomic screening results. METHODS: Participants were recruited at a federally qualified health center in the USA. In-person, semi-structured interviews were conducted in either Spanish or English by a bilingual, bicultural interviewer. Questions focused on motivations for pursuing genomic sequencing, concerns about receiving genomic screening results, and perceived benefits of receiving genomic information. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated. RESULTS: Fifty individuals completed an interview; 39 were conducted in Spanish. Participants described mixed motivations for pursuing genomic screening. Participants viewed the benefits of genomic screening in relation to not only their personal health but to the health of their families and their communities. Participants tended to have few concerns about genomic screening. Those concerns related to potential loss of privacy, misuses of genomic information, and the possibility of receiving distressing results. Some participants had misunderstandings about the scope of the test and the potential implications of their results. Most felt it was better to know about a genetic predisposition to disease than to remain uninformed. Participants felt that genomic screening was worthwhile. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first studies to examine the experiences of Latino individuals receiving genomic screening results. Our results suggest that many Latino patients in the US see value in genomic screening and have limited concerns about its potential to cause harm. These results inform ongoing efforts to increase the availability of genomic medicine to underrepresented populations and add to our understanding of sociocultural drivers in the adoption of precision medicine.

"They're Not Going to Do Nothing for Me": Research Participants' Attitudes towards Elective Genetic Counseling.

As applications of genomic sequencing have expanded, offering genetic counseling support to all patients is arguably no longer practical. Additionally, whether individuals desire and value genetic counseling services for genomic screening is unclear. We offered elective genetic counseling to 5110 individuals prior to undergoing sequencing and 2310 participants who received neutral results to assess demand. A total of 0.2% of the study participants accessed genetic counseling services prior to sequencing, and 0.3% reached out after receiving neutral results. We later conducted 50 interviews with participants to understand why they did not access these services. Many interviewees did not recall the availability of genetic counseling and were unfamiliar with the profession. Interviewees described not needing counseling before sequencing because they understood the study and felt that they could cope with any result. Counseling was considered equally unnecessary after learning neutral results. Although the participants had questions about their results, they did not feel that speaking with a genetic counselor would be helpful. Genomic screening efforts that employ opt-in models of genetic counseling may need to clarify the potential value of genetic counseling support from the outset and feature genetic counseling services more prominently in program materials.