Non-invasive prenatal screening: Testing motivations and decision making in the low-risk population.

Non-invasive prenatal screening provides a risk assessment for aneuploidies by utilizing cell-free DNA (cfDNA). It is recommended that cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA screening) be offered to all pregnant people regardless of a priori risk for aneuploidy. In the absence of an increased risk, alternative motives for electing cfDNA screening and different levels of informed decision making may arise. Therefore, our study aimed to characterize low-risk patients' motivations for cfDNA screening election, determine how often informed decisions are being made, and compare motivations between informed and uninformed decision makers. A survey that included a modified, validated measure of informed choice (MMIC) and questions to assess patients' motivations for cfDNA screening was offered at four MFM clinics following genetic counseling. It was found that 44% of participants (n = 100) made an uninformed decision about testing. Participants with private insurers were 4.25 times more likely to make an informed decision (95% CI = 1.10-16.37). Informed decision makers scored avoiding invasive procedures higher (p = 0.007) and ranked doing what family/friends desire lower (p = 0.005) than uninformed decision makers. While most participants scored receiving information about genetic conditions highest, 12% of participants reported fetal sex disclosure as a priority. However, this was not found to be associated with uninformed decision making. This study ultimately established that following genetic counseling, a low-risk population shared motivations with high-risk populations which highlights the importance of complete pre-test counseling for all. Future research should investigate the effect of modifying variables, such as socioeconomic status, on the performance of informed choice measures and critically evaluate the parameters that determine informed choice.

A Student-Designed Multimodal Sex- and Gender-Based Women's Health Elective Program: Advocacy Curriculum for Medical Students.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to describe the design and implementation of a multimodal, student-driven, sex- and gender-based women's health (SGBWH) elective with a curricular focus on patient and legislative advocacy. In this single arm, pre/post design, interventional study, we detail and evaluate the use of social media, newsletters, and round-table discussions in conjunction with a traditional lecture-based educational format to engage medical students in a virtual learning environment. METHODS: We developed a 22-week SGBWH curriculum for pre-clinical and clinical medical students, which included a series of lectures on multi-specialty and gender-inclusive topics related to SGBWH, small group discussions with community leaders and legislators involved in women's health advocacy, and other self-directed resources such as social media, a website, and digital newsletters. Students were surveyed before and after completing the curriculum to assess for increases in self-reported confidence in advocating for their female and gender minority patients. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: One hundred and one students completed the anonymous pre- and post-elective surveys. There was statistically significant improvement in 8 of the 12 self-reported confidence measures. Eight (8%) participants identified their sex as male. Fifty-five (55%) participants stated future interest in primary care specialties (Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Pediatrics). Our curriculum improved medical students' self-reported confidence in advocating for their female and gender minority patients when controlling for sex and specialty interest of participants. The success of our multimodal approach demonstrates the value in incorporating resources such as social media as tools for education and advocacy in the evolving landscape of medical education.

Disability education and implications for genetic counselor training.

The genetic counseling (GC) community has faced criticism about the duality of promoting patient autonomy while also advocating for individuals with disabilities. This study assessed the attitudes of the disability community and GCs to identify content that should be included in GC disability education and evaluate the landscape of GC disability education. Members of the disability community and GCs completed an electronic survey distributed through electronic listservs and partnering organizations. A total of 672 responses were analyzed from both the disability community (n = 596) and the GC community (n = 76). Members of the disability community noted differences in GC comfort level discussing different aspects of disability with GCs being perceived as being very knowledgeable about medical aspects 71% of the time versus 49% of the time when discussing social/lifestyle aspects of disability. This discordance was reflected in GCs reported comfort level in discussing medical aspects (89%) and social aspects of disability (65%) during a session. Most GC respondents (71%) felt they received adequate knowledge during their disability education and variation was reported in the execution of disability education by training programs. Disability education content recommendations from the disability community and GCs included emphasizing four key aspects of disability: medical, social/lifestyle, lived experience, and the disability rights movement. Respondents of both cohorts stressed the inclusion of and exposure to persons with disabilities in disability education to understand the lived experience of persons with disabilities. The disability community identified additional disability education content to be included such as empathy training, family hardships, and mental health. The results of this study have practice implications and provide a foundation for training expectations to ensure future GCs possess the necessary skills to improve the quality of services provided to families and persons with disabilities.

Medical ethics principles underscore advocating for human papillomavirus vaccine.

Studies have consistently shown that vaccination rates against human papillomavirus (HPV) lag far behind other adolescent vaccinations recommended at the same age, resulting in exposing adolescents to unnecessary future risk of infection, and genital and head and neck cancers. Studies also have demonstrated that a major barrier to vaccination is lack of a strong provider recommendation. Factors that providers offer for failing to give a strong recommendation range from perception that the child is not at risk or the need to explain that the vaccine is not mandated (lack of equity and justice) or respect for parental autonomy. We look at the issue through a different lens, and reframe the above viewpoint by describing how failing to make a strong recommendation means the provider is not meeting the four principles of medical ethics (justice, beneficence, non-maleficence and autonomy).

DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives.

PURPOSE: Current genomic research policy calls for public data release with specific consent for data sharing. Because most clinical investigators are not responsible for and do not anticipate data broadcast few include information about data sharing in their informed consent process. Model language is therefore urgently needed and should be responsive to research participants' attitudes and judgments. The purpose of this study was to describe research participants' attitudes and judgments about data release and their preferences for varying levels of control over decision-making. METHODS: Focus group sessions with patients and controls from a genetic study of epilepsy. RESULTS: Despite wide variation in judgments, there was general interest in receiving information and making decisions about data sharing. Participants preferred multiple data sharing options, but were more likely to consent to public data release when given fewer options. For existing samples most participants felt that genomic information should not be publicly released without explicit consent from research participants. CONCLUSIONS: Specific information about data sharing ought to be included in the consent process for all genetic research. These participants desire multiple data release options, but the effect, if any, on consent to public release deserves further investigation.