Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data?

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.

International Genetic Testing and Counseling Practices for Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: There is growing clinical and research utilization of genetic testing in Parkinson's disease (PD), including direct-to-consumer testing. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to determine the international landscape of genetic testing in PD to inform future worldwide recommendations. METHODS: A web-based survey assessing current practices, concerns, and barriers to genetic testing and counseling was administered to the International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society membership. RESULTS: Common hurdles across sites included cost and access to genetic testing, and counseling, as well as education on genetic counseling. Region-dependent differences in access to and availability of testing and counseling were most notable in Africa. High-income countries also demonstrated heterogeneity, with European nations more likely to have genetic testing covered through insurance than Pan-American and Asian countries. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights not only diversity of barriers in different regions but also the shared and highly actionable needs for improved education and access to genetic counseling and testing for PD worldwide. © 2023 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Genetic Testing in Parkinson's Disease.

Genetic testing for persons with Parkinson's disease is becoming increasingly common. Significant gains have been made regarding genetic testing methods, and testing is becoming more readily available in clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer settings. Although the potential utility of clinical testing is expanding, there are currently no proven gene-targeted therapies, but clinical trials are underway. Furthermore, genetic testing practices vary widely, as do knowledge and attitudes of relevant stakeholders. The specter of testing mandates financial, ethical, and physician engagement, and there is a need for guidelines to help navigate the myriad of challenges. However, to develop guidelines, gaps and controversies need to be clearly identified and analyzed. To this end, we first reviewed recent literature and subsequently identified gaps and controversies, some of which were partially addressed in the literature, but many of which are not well delineated or researched. Key gaps and controversies include: (1) Is genetic testing appropriate in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals without medical actionability? (2) How, if at all, should testing vary based on ethnicity? (3) What are the long-term outcomes of consumer- and research-based genetic testing in presymptomatic PD? (4) What resources are needed for clinical genetic testing, and how is this impacted by models of care and cost-benefit considerations? Addressing these issues will help facilitate the development of consensus and guidelines regarding the approach and access to genetic testing and counseling. This is also needed to guide a multidisciplinary approach that accounts for cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic factors in developing testing guidelines. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Public Preferences for Digital Health Data Sharing: Discrete Choice Experiment Study in 12 European Countries.

BACKGROUND: With new technologies, health data can be collected in a variety of different clinical, research, and public health contexts, and then can be used for a range of new purposes. Establishing the public's views about digital health data sharing is essential for policy makers to develop effective harmonization initiatives for digital health data governance at the European level. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated public preferences for digital health data sharing. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to a sample of European residents in 12 European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) from August 2020 to August 2021. Respondents answered whether hypothetical situations of data sharing were acceptable for them. Each hypothetical scenario was defined by 5 attributes ("data collector," "data user," "reason for data use," "information on data sharing and consent," and "availability of review process"), which had 3 to 4 attribute levels each. A latent class model was run across the whole data set and separately for different European regions (Northern, Central, and Southern Europe). Attribute relative importance was calculated for each latent class's pooled and regional data sets. RESULTS: A total of 5015 completed surveys were analyzed. In general, the most important attribute for respondents was the availability of information and consent during health data sharing. In the latent class model, 4 classes of preference patterns were identified. While respondents in 2 classes strongly expressed their preferences for data sharing with opposing positions, respondents in the other 2 classes preferred not to share their data, but attribute levels of the situation could have had an impact on their preferences. Respondents generally found the following to be the most acceptable: a national authority or academic research project as the data user; being informed and asked to consent; and a review process for data transfer and use, or transfer only. On the other hand, collection of their data by a technological company and data use for commercial communication were the least acceptable. There was preference heterogeneity across Europe and within European regions. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the importance of transparency in data use and oversight of health-related data sharing for European respondents. Regional and intraregional preference heterogeneity for "data collector," "data user," "reason," "type of consent," and "review" calls for governance solutions that would grant data subjects the ability to control their digital health data being shared within different contexts. These results suggest that the use of data without consent will demand weighty and exceptional reasons. An interactive and dynamic informed consent model combined with oversight mechanisms may be a solution for policy initiatives aiming to harmonize health data use across Europe.

The RD-Connect Genome-Phenome Analysis Platform: Accelerating diagnosis, research, and gene discovery for rare diseases.

Rare disease patients are more likely to receive a rapid molecular diagnosis nowadays thanks to the wide adoption of next-generation sequencing. However, many cases remain undiagnosed even after exome or genome analysis, because the methods used missed the molecular cause in a known gene, or a novel causative gene could not be identified and/or confirmed. To address these challenges, the RD-Connect Genome-Phenome Analysis Platform (GPAP) facilitates the collation, discovery, sharing, and analysis of standardized genome-phenome data within a collaborative environment. Authorized clinicians and researchers submit pseudonymised phenotypic profiles encoded using the Human Phenotype Ontology, and raw genomic data which is processed through a standardized pipeline. After an optional embargo period, the data are shared with other platform users, with the objective that similar cases in the system and queries from peers may help diagnose the case. Additionally, the platform enables bidirectional discovery of similar cases in other databases from the Matchmaker Exchange network. To facilitate genome-phenome analysis and interpretation by clinical researchers, the RD-Connect GPAP provides a powerful user-friendly interface and leverages tens of information sources. As a result, the resource has already helped diagnose hundreds of rare disease patients and discover new disease causing genes.

Return of genomic results does not motivate intent to participate in research for all: Perspectives across 22 countries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally. METHODS: We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States. CONCLUSION: There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

What ethical approaches are used by scientists when sharing health data? An interview study.

BACKGROUND: Health data-driven activities have become central in diverse fields (research, AI development, wearables, etc.), and new ethical challenges have arisen with regards to privacy, integrity, and appropriateness of use. To ensure the protection of individuals' fundamental rights and freedoms in a changing environment, including their right to the protection of personal data, we aim to identify the ethical approaches adopted by scientists during intensive data exploitation when collecting, using, or sharing peoples' health data. METHODS: Twelve scientists who were collecting, using, or sharing health data in different contexts in Sweden, were interviewed. We used systematic expert interviews to access these scientists' specialist knowledge, and analysed the interviews with thematic analysis. Phrases, sentences, or paragraphs through which ethical values and norms were expressed, were identified and coded. Codes that reflected similar concepts were grouped, subcategories were formulated, and categories were connected to traditional ethical approaches. RESULTS: Through several examples, the respondents expressed four different ethical approaches, which formed the main conceptual categories: consideration of consequences, respect for rights, procedural compliance, and being professional. CONCLUSIONS: To a large extent, the scientists' ethical approaches were consistent with ethical and legal principles. Data sharing was considered important and worth pursuing, even though it is difficult. An awareness of the complex issues involved in data sharing was reflected from different perspectives, and the respondents commonly perceived a general lack of practical procedures that would by default ensure ethical and legally compliant data collection and sharing. We suggest that it is an opportune time to move on from policy discussions to practical technological ethics-by-design solutions that integrate these principles into practice.

Prevalence and determinants of serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the general population of the Gardena valley.

Estimating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection in communities is critical. We surveyed 2244 stratified random sample community members of the Gardena valley, a winter touristic area, amidst the first expansion phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. We measured agreement between Diasorin and Abbott serum bioassay outputs and the Abbott optimal discriminant threshold of serum neutralisation titres with recursive receiver operating characteristic curve. We analytically adjusted serum antibody tests for unbiased seroprevalence estimate and analysed the determinants of infection with non-response weighted multiple logistic regression. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was 26.9% (95% CI 25.2-28.6) by June 2020. The bioassays had a modest agreement with each other. At a lower threshold than the manufacturer's recommended level, the Abbott assay reflected greater discrimination of serum neutralisation capacity. Seropositivity was associated with place and economic activity, not with sex or age. Symptoms like fever and weakness were age-dependent. SARS-CoV-2 mitigation strategies should account for context in high prevalence areas.

Microbiota, type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: protocol of an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is characterized by triglyceride accumulation in the hepatocytes in the absence of alcohol overconsumption, commonly associated with insulin resistance and obesity. Both NAFLD and type 2 diabetes (T2D) are characterized by an altered microbiota composition, however the role of the microbiota in NAFLD and T2D is not well understood. To assess the relationship between alteration in the microbiota and NAFLD while dissecting the role of T2D, we established a nested study on T2D and non-T2D individuals within the Cooperative Health Research In South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, called the CHRIS-NAFLD study. Here, we present the study protocol along with baseline and follow-up characteristics of study participants. METHODS: Among the first 4979 CHRIS study participants, 227 individuals with T2D were identified and recalled, along with 227 age- and sex-matched non-T2D individuals. Participants underwent ultrasound and transient elastography examination to evaluate the presence of hepatic steatosis and liver stiffness. Additionally, sampling of saliva and faeces, biochemical measurements and clinical interviews were carried out. RESULTS: We recruited 173 T2D and 183 non-T2D participants (78% overall response rate). Hepatic steatosis was more common in T2D (63.7%) than non-T2D (36.3%) participants. T2D participants also had higher levels of liver stiffness (median 4.8 kPa, interquartile range (IQR) 3.7, 5.9) than non-T2D participants (median 3.9 kPa, IQR 3.3, 5.1). The non-invasive scoring systems like the NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) suggests an increased liver fibrosis in T2D (mean - 0.55, standard deviation, SD, 1.30) than non-T2D participants (mean - 1.30, SD, 1.17). DISCUSSION: Given the comprehensive biochemical and clinical characterization of study participants, once the bioinformatics classification of the microbiota will be completed, the CHRIS-NAFLD study will become a useful resource to further our understanding of the relationship between microbiota, T2D and NAFLD.

From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research.

Advances in computing technology and bioinformatics mean that medical research is increasingly characterized by large international consortia of researchers that are reliant on large data sets and biobanks. These trends raise a number of challenges for obtaining consent, protecting participant privacy concerns and maintaining public trust. Participant-centred initiatives (PCIs) use social media technologies to address these immediate concerns, but they also provide the basis for long-term interactive partnerships. Here, we give an overview of this rapidly moving field by providing an analysis of the different PCI approaches, as well as the benefits and challenges of implementing PCIs.

The Role of Solidarity(-ies) in Rare Diseases Research.

Solidarity plays a relevant role in rare diseases (RDs) research to create and enable research in the field. In Europe RDs are estimated to affect between 27 and 36 million people even though single RDs can count very few patients, making the contribution of everyone essential to reach solid results. Often RD research is initiated by patient groups devoting substantial time and resources to the scientific enterprise. In RD research solidarity is often evocated and expressed, in different ways and on different levels, so that it is possible to talk about "solidarities" played by different stakeholders and sometimes conflicting with each other. In this paper we describe different contexts in which solidarity is expressed and embedded in RD research, in particular the context of tight relationships between individuals and their families or in small communities/ethnic groups; among individuals suffering from different RDs and researchers working on a specific RD or a group of RDs, and within society at large. In all these cases the different types of solidarity should be balanced against each other and also against conflicting values. The request to a patient to share data and samples to increase scientific knowledge on the basis of solidarity values needs to be balanced against the need to protect her privacy and autonomy; the duty for a researcher to allow fair access to RD sample and data collections which were donated in a spirit of solidarity is balanced against the need to be competitive in the research world. In the Report "Solidarity. Reflections on an emerging concept in bioethics", the Nuffield Council of Bioethics defines solidarity as "shared practices reflecting a collective commitment to carry 'costs' (financial, social, emotional or otherwise) to assist others". Therefore, if a solidarity framework has to be solid and ethically sound it needs to be framed as a shared value, reflected in the different practices by all the stakeholders and be based on reciprocity (not one sided). The context of solidarity(ies) provides a solid base for framing the research endeavor as collectively valuable, not only for possible results of the research, but as intrinsic valid societal practice. This paper tries to draw the lessons on solidarity that we can derive from the RD world where "solidarities" have been part of the game for long time and are declined on many different levels.

Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in technology have contributed to rapid changes in the way that modern biomedical research is carried out. Researchers are increasingly required to endorse adaptive and flexible approaches to accommodate these innovations and comply with ethical, legal and regulatory requirements. This paper explores how Dynamic Consent may provide solutions to address challenges encountered when researchers invite individuals to participate in research and follow them up over time in a continuously changing environment. METHODS: An interdisciplinary workshop jointly organised by the University of Oxford and the COST Action CHIP ME gathered clinicians, researchers, ethicists, lawyers, research participants and patient representatives to discuss experiences of using Dynamic Consent, and how such use may facilitate the conduct of specific research tasks. The data collected during the workshop were analysed using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Dynamic Consent can provide practical, sustainable and future-proof solutions to challenges related to participant recruitment, the attainment of informed consent, participant retention and consent management, and may bring economic efficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic Consent offers opportunities for ongoing communication between researchers and research participants that can positively impact research. Dynamic Consent supports inter-sector, cross-border approaches and large scale data-sharing. Whilst it is relatively easy to set up and maintain, its implementation will require that researchers re-consider their relationship with research participants and adopt new procedures.

The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study: rationale, objectives, and preliminary results.

The Cooperative Health Research In South Tyrol (CHRIS) study is a population-based study with a longitudinal lookout to investigate the genetic and molecular basis of age-related common chronic conditions and their interaction with life style and environment in the general population. All adults of the middle and upper Vinschgau/Val Venosta are invited, while 10,000 participants are anticipated by mid-2017. Family participation is encouraged for complete pedigree reconstruction and disease inheritance mapping. After a pilot study on the compliance with a paperless assessment mode, computer-assisted interviews have been implemented to screen for conditions of the cardiovascular, endocrine, metabolic, genitourinary, nervous, behavioral, and cognitive system. Fat intake, cardiac health, and tremor are assessed instrumentally. Nutrient intake, physical activity, and life-course smoking are measured semi-quantitatively. Participants are phenotyped for 73 blood and urine parameters and 60 aliquots per participant are biobanked (cryo-preserved urine, DNA, and whole and fractionated blood). Through liquid-chromatography mass-spectrometry analysis, metabolite profiling of the mitochondrial function is assessed. Samples are genotyped on 1 million variants with the Illumina HumanOmniExpressExome array and the first data release including 4570 fully phenotyped and genotyped samples is now available for analysis. Participants' follow-up is foreseen 6 years after the first visit. The target population is characterized by long-term social stability and homogeneous environment which should both favor the identification of enriched genetic variants. The CHRIS cohort is a valuable resource to assess the contribution of genomics, metabolomics, and environmental factors to human health and disease. It is awaited that this will result in the identification of novel molecular targets for disease prevention and treatment.

Artificial Intelligence Needs Data: Challenges Accessing Italian Databases to Train AI.

Population biobanks are an increasingly important infrastructure to support research and will be a much-needed resource in the delivery of personalised medicine. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can process and cross-link very large amounts of data quickly and be used not only for improving research power but also for helping with complex diagnosis and prediction of diseases based on health profiles. AI, therefore, potentially has a critical role to play in personalised medicine, and biobanks can provide a lot of the necessary baseline data related to healthy populations that will enable the development of AI tools. To develop these tools, access to personal data, and in particular, sensitive data, is required. Such data could be accessed from biobanks. Biobanks are a valuable resource for research but accessing and using the data contained within such biobanks raise a host of legal, ethical, and social issues (ELSI). This includes the appropriate consent to manage the collection, storage, use, and sharing of samples and data, and appropriate governance models that provide oversight of secondary use of samples and data. Biobanks have developed new consent models and governance tools to enable access that address some of these ELSI-related issues. In this paper, we consider whether such governance frameworks can enable access to biobank data to develop AI. As Italy has one of the most restrictive regulatory frameworks on the use of genetic data in Europe, we examine the regulatory framework in Italy. We also look at the proposed changes under the European Health Data Space (EHDS). We conclude by arguing that currently, regulatory frameworks are misaligned and unless addressed, accessing data within Italian biobanks to train AI will be severely limited.

Ethical and social reflections on the proposed European Health Data Space.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the benefits of international data sharing. Data sharing enabled the health care policy makers to make decisions based on real-time data, it enabled the tracking of the virus, and importantly it enabled the development of vaccines that were crucial to mitigating the impact of the virus. This data sharing is not the norm as data sharing needs to navigate complex ethical and legal rules, and in particular, the fragmented application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The introduction of the draft regulation for a European Health Data Space (EHDS) in May 2022 seeks to address some of these legal issues. If passed, it will create an obligation to share electronic health data for certain secondary purposes. While there is a clear need to address the legal complexities involved with data sharing, it is critical that any proposed reforms are in line with ethical principles and the expectations of the data subjects. In this paper we offer a critique of the EHDS and offer some recommendations for this evolving regulatory space.

Participant perspective on the recall-by-genotype research approach: a mixed-method embedded study with participants of the CHRIS study.

Recall-by-genotype (RbG) research recruits participants previously involved in genetic research based on their genotype. RbG enables the further study of a particular variant of interest, but in recalling participants, it risks disclosing potentially unwanted or distressing genetic information. Any RbG strategy must therefore be done in a manner that addresses the potential ethical and social issues. As part of an RbG pilot on the penetrance of Parkinson's disease variants, we conducted an empirical mixed-method study with 51 participants of the Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study to understand participant views on RbG research approach. Participants were disclosed the disease under investigation but not the individual variant carrier status. Results showed that participants filtered the information received through personal experience and enacted mechanisms to address the concerns raised by invitation by resorting to personal resources and the support provided by experts. While the non-disclosure of the Parkin variant carrier status was deemed acceptable, disclosing the disease under study was important for participants. Participant preferences for disclosure of the disease under investigation and the carrier status varied according to how the knowledge of individual carrier status was perceived to impact the participant's life. This study provided insights into participant response to the RbG research approach, which are relevant for RbG policy development. A suitable communication strategy and granular options addressing preferences for invitation in the original informed consent are critical for an ethically informed RbG policy.

Digital Biomarkers in Psychiatric Research: Data Protection Qualifications in a Complex Ecosystem.

Psychiatric research traditionally relies on subjective observation, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive. The widespread use of digital devices, such as smartphones and wearables, enables the collection and use of vast amounts of user-generated data as "digital biomarkers." These tools may also support increased participation of psychiatric patients in research and, as a result, the production of research results that are meaningful to them. However, sharing mental health data and research results may expose patients to discrimination and stigma risks, thus discouraging participation. To earn and maintain participants' trust, the first essential requirement is to implement an appropriate data governance system with a clear and transparent allocation of data protection duties and responsibilities among the actors involved in the process. These include sponsors, investigators, operators of digital tools, as well as healthcare service providers and biobanks/databanks. While previous works have proposed practical solutions to this end, there is a lack of consideration of positive data protection law issues in the extant literature. To start filling this gap, this paper discusses the GDPR legal qualifications of controller, processor, and joint controllers in the complex ecosystem unfolded by the integration of digital biomarkers in psychiatric research, considering their implications and proposing some general practical recommendations.

Ethical, legal and social/societal implications (ELSI) of recall-by-genotype (RbG) and genotype-driven-research (GDR) approaches: a scoping review.

Recall by Genotype (RbG), Genotype-driven-recall (GDR), and Genotype-based-recall (GBR) strategies are increasingly used to conduct genomic or biobanking sub-studies that single out participants as eligible because of their specific individual genotypic information. However, existing regulatory and governance frameworks do not apply to all aspects of genotype-driven research approaches. The recall strategies disclose or withhold personal genotypic information with uncertain clinical utility. Accordingly, this scoping review aims to identify peculiar, explicit and implicit ethical, legal, and societal/social implications (ELSI) of RbG study designs. We conducted a systematic literature search of three electronic databases from November 2020 to February 2021. We investigated qualitative and quantitative research methods used to report ELSI aspects in RbG research. Congruent with other research findings, we identified a lack of qualitative research investigating the particular ELSI challenges with RbG. We included and analysed the content of twenty-five publications. We found a consensus on RbG posing significant ethical issues, dilemmas, barriers, concerns and societal challenges. However, we found that the approaches to disclosure and study-specific recall and communication strategies employed consent models and Return of Research Results (RoRR) policies varied considerably. Furthermore, we identified a high heterogeneity in perspectives of participants and experts about ELSI of study-specific RbG policies. Therefore, further fine-mapping through qualitative and empirical research is needed to draw conclusions and re-fine ELSI frameworks.