ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Genetic Testing , Parents , Psychometrics , Humans , Female , Male , Child , Psychometrics/methods , Genetic Testing/methods , Parents/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adolescent , Genomics/methods , Child, Preschool , AdultABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: As population-based screening programs to identify genetic conditions in adults using genomic sequencing (GS) are increasingly available, validated patient-centered outcome measures are needed to understand participants' experience. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess the perceived utility of GS in the context of adult screening. METHODS: Informed by a five-domain conceptual model, we used a five-step approach to instrument development and validation: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Adults undergoing risk-based or population-based GS who had received GS results as part of ongoing research studies participated in structured cognitive interviews and two rounds of surveys. After item pool refinement, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments. RESULTS: We derived the 18-item Adult Diagnostic version of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale (total sum score α = .87). Mirroring the Pediatric Diagnostic version, the instrument has a two-factor structure, including an Informational Utility subscale (14 items, α =.89) and an Emotional Utility subscale (4 items, α =.75). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS. Correlations of the Emotional Utility subscale with psychosocial impact and anxiety and depression were weak to moderate. CONCLUSION: Initial psychometric testing of the Adult Screening GENE-U scale demonstrates its promise, and additional validation in translational genomics research is warranted.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe parents' motivations for and against participation in neonatal research, including the views of those who declined participation. STUDY DESIGN: We performed 44 semi-structured, qualitative interviews of parents approached for neonatal research. Here we describe their motivations for and against participation. RESULTS: Altruism was an important reason parents chose to participate. Some hoped participation in research would benefit their infant. Burdens of participation to the family, such as transportation to follow up (distinct from risks/burdens to the infant), were often deciding factors among those who declined participation. Perceived risks to the infant were reasons against participation, but parents often did not differentiate between baseline risks and incremental risk of study participation. Concerns regarding their infant being treated like a "guinea pig" were common among those who declined. Finally, historical abuses and institutional racism were reported as important concerns by some research decliners from minoritized populations. CONCLUSIONS: Within a diverse sample of parents approached to enroll their infant in neonatal research, motivations for and against participation emerged, which may be targets of future interventions. These motivations included reasons for participation which we may hope to encourage, such as altruism. They also included reasons against participation, which we may hope to, as feasible, eliminate, mitigate, or at least acknowledge. These findings can help clinical trialists, regulators, and funders attempting to improve neonatal research recruitment processes.
ABSTRACT
Being a parent is hard, particularly parenting adolescents, who need to be given choices and allowed the space to learn how to make choices for themselves, even when those choices result in negative consequences. This essay explores how Steven Sondheim and James Lapine's 1987 musical Into the Woods provides relatable stories of the challenges of being a parent, the challenges of parenting adolescents, and just how messy parents and families can be despite everyone trying their best. The stories of Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel, Jack, and Cinderella show us various stages, trajectories, and occasional tragedies of adolescents' emerging autonomy, while the Baker's and the Witch's struggles becoming and being parents encapsulate how disorderly and untidy parenting often is. Pediatricians and clinical bioethicists, who are often in a position to scrutinize the choices of parents and teens, should remember that parents and adolescents are almost always motivated by good intentions and doing the best that they can. Perhaps the best we can do is accompany them on their journey "into the woods."
Subject(s)
Parent-Child Relations , Parenting , Parents , Humans , Adolescent , Parents/psychology , Parenting/psychology , Choice Behavior , Adolescent Behavior/psychology , Female , Child , Personal AutonomyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Recommendations for surgical repair of a congenital heart defect in children with trisomy 13 or trisomy 18 remain controversial, are subject to biases, and are largely unsupported with limited empirical data. This has created significant distrust and uncertainty among parents and could potentially lead to suboptimal care for patients. A working group, representing several clinical specialties involved with the care of these children, developed recommendations to assist in the decision-making process for congenital heart defect care in this population. The goal of these recommendations is to provide families and their health care teams with a framework for clinical decision making based on the literature and expert opinions. METHODS: This project was performed under the auspices of the AATS Congenital Heart Surgery Evidence-Based Medicine Taskforce. A Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison/Control, Outcome process was used to generate preliminary statements and recommendations to address various aspects related to cardiac surgery in children with trisomy 13 or trisomy 18. Delphi methodology was then used iteratively to generate consensus among the group using a structured communication process. RESULTS: Nine recommendations were developed from a set of initial statements that arose from the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison/Control, Outcome process methodology following the groups' review of more than 500 articles. These recommendations were adjudicated by this group of experts using a modified Delphi process in a reproducible fashion and make up the current publication. The Class (strength) of recommendations was usually Class IIa (moderate benefit), and the overall level (quality) of evidence was level C-limited data. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first set of recommendations collated by an expert multidisciplinary group to address specific issues around indications for surgical intervention in children with trisomy 13 or trisomy 18 with congenital heart defect. Based on our analysis of recent data, we recommend that decisions should not be based solely on the presence of trisomy but, instead, should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering both the severity of the baby's heart disease as well as the presence of other anomalies. These recommendations offer a framework to assist parents and clinicians in surgical decision making for children who have trisomy 13 or trisomy 18 with congenital heart defect.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Surgical Procedures , Heart Defects, Congenital , Thoracic Surgery , Infant , Child , Humans , United States , Trisomy 18 Syndrome/diagnosis , Trisomy 13 Syndrome/diagnosis , Consensus , Heart Defects, Congenital/genetics , Heart Defects, Congenital/surgeryABSTRACT
Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery.
Genetic counseling services delivered in the usual wayduring clinic visitscan take up a lot of time for patients and genetic counselors. Alternatives to this practice have been studied among genetic counseling patients to spare genetic counselors' time and expand access and flexibility for patients. Yet, in these studies, the participants have lacked diversity. So, it is not known how these research findings pertain to all populations. In this study, we looked at the use of an alternative care model, a mailed letter, for sharing normal genetic test results with study participants from underserved populations. We tested whether patients viewed the mailed letter as no worse than a telephone conversation with a genetic counselor, which has been shown to be well received by patients. We learned that study participants felt they understood their results, were not distressed to receive the results, and were satisfied with how their results were delivered. Lastly, we found that participants were more satisfied with the amount of information provided about their test results during the telephone conversation compared with the mailed letter. This study provides new information about different ways to deliver test results to individuals receiving genetic services.
Subject(s)
Genetic Counseling , Genetic Testing , Neoplasms , Telephone , Humans , Female , Genetic Testing/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Genetic Counseling/methods , Neoplasms/genetics , Adult , Vulnerable Populations , Disclosure , Postal Service , AgedABSTRACT
Health equity is the state in which everyone has fair and just opportunities to attain their highest level of health. The field of human genomics has fallen short in increasing health equity, largely because the diversity of the human population has been inadequately reflected among participants of genomics research. This lack of diversity leads to disparities that can have scientific and clinical consequences. Achieving health equity related to genomics will require greater effort in addressing inequities within the field. As part of the commitment of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) to advancing health equity, it convened experts in genomics and health equity research to make recommendations and performed a review of current literature to identify the landscape of gaps and opportunities at the interface between human genomics and health equity research. This Perspective describes these findings and examines health equity within the context of human genomics and genomic medicine.
Subject(s)
Genomics , Health Equity , Humans , Genomics/methods , United States , Genome, Human , National Human Genome Research Institute (U.S.)ABSTRACT
Large research teams and consortia present challenges for authorship. The number of disciplines involved in the research can further complicate approaches to manuscript development and leadership. The CHARM team, representing a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional genomics implementation study, participated in facilitated discussions inspired by team science methodologies. The discussions were centered on team members' past experiences with authorship and perspectives on authorship in a large research team context. Team members identified challenges and opportunities that were used to create guidelines and administrative tools to support manuscript development. The guidelines were organized by the three values of equity, inclusion, and efficiency and included eight principles. A visual dashboard was created to allow all team members to see who was leading or involved in each paper. Additional tools to promote equity, inclusion, and efficiency included providing standardized project management for each manuscript and making "concept sheets" for each manuscript accessible to all team members. The process used in CHARM can be used by other large research teams and consortia to equitably distribute lead authorship opportunities, foster coauthor inclusion, and efficiently work with large authorship groups.