Public Perspectives on Investigative Genetic Genealogy: Findings from a National Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a technique that involves uploading genotypes developed from perpetrator DNA left at a crime scene, or DNA from unidentified remains, to public genetic genealogy databases to identify genetic relatives and, through the creation of a family tree, the individual who was the source of the DNA. As policymakers demonstrate interest in regulating IGG, it is important to understand public perspectives on IGG to determine whether proposed policies are aligned with public attitudes. METHODS: We conducted eight focus groups with members of the public (N = 72), sampled from four geographically diverse US regions, to explore general attitudes and perspectives regarding aspects of IGG practices, applications, and policies. Five major topics were explored in each focus group: when IGG should be used; who should perform IGG; how to approach consent for genetic database users; what systems of oversight should govern IGG practitioners; and whether to notify database users if their data are involved in law enforcement (LE) matching. RESULTS: Participants were supportive of IGG in most scenarios, especially for cold and violent cases. The favorable attitudes toward IGG were, however, tempered by distrust of law enforcement among some participants. All participants agreed that databases must inform users if IGG is allowed, but they did not agree on how individual database users should be allowed to opt out or whether to notify them if their data are involved in specific investigations. All participants agreed that IGG should be subject to some prescriptive guidelines, regulations, or accountability mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest broad public support for IGG, and interest in developing systems of accountability for its practice. Our study provides useful insight for policy makers, genomic database stewards, law enforcement, and other stakeholders in IGG's practice, and suggests multiple directions for future research.

IGG in the trenches: Results of an in-depth interview study on the practice, politics, and future of investigative genetic genealogy.

Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects and unidentified deceased and living persons that has sparked controversy. In a criminal case, the technique involves uploading genetic information left by a putative perpetrator at the crime scene to one or more direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy databases with the intention of identifying the perpetrator's genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the perpetrator on the family tree. In 2018, IGG helped to identify the Golden State Killer, and it has since been used in hundreds of investigations in the United States. Here, we report findings from in-depth interviews with 24 U.S.-based individuals involved in IGG that are relevant to the technique's current practice and predicted future. Key findings include: an emphasis on restricting IGG as a conceptual and technical matter to lead generation; the rapid growth of a private and largely self-regulating industry to support IGG; general recognition of three categories of cases associated with distinct practical, ethical, and policy questions, as well as varying degrees of controversy; and the significant influence of perceived public opinion on IGG practice. The experiences and perspectives of individuals in the IGG trenches related to these and other issues are potentially useful inputs to ongoing efforts to regulate the technique.

Families' experiences accessing care after genomic sequencing in the pediatric cancer context: "It's just been a big juggle".

Access to genomic sequencing (GS) and resulting recommendations have not been well described in pediatric oncology. GS results may provide a cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) diagnosis that warrants screening and specialist visits beyond cancer treatment, including testing or surveillance for family members. The Texas KidsCanSeq (KCS) Study evaluated implementation of GS in a diverse pediatric oncology population. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 20) to explore experiences of KCS patients' families around learning about a CPS diagnosis and following up on recommended care. We used qualitative content analysis to develop themes and subthemes across families' descriptions of their experiences accessing care and to understand which factors presented barriers and/or facilitators. We found participants had difficulty differentiating which follow-up care recommendations were made for their child's current cancer treatment versus the CPS. In families' access to follow-up care for CPS, organizational factors were crucial: travel time and distance were common hardships, while coordination of care to streamline multiple appointments with different providers helped facilitate CPS care. Financial factors also impacted families' access to CPS-related follow-up care: having financial assistance and insurance were facilitators for families, while costs and lack of insurance posed as barriers for patients who lost coverage during transitions from pediatric to adult care, and for adult family members who had no coverage. Factors related to beliefs and perceptions, specifically perceiving the risk as less salient to them and feeling overwhelmed with the patient's cancer care, presented barriers to follow-up care primarily for family members. Regarding social factors, competing life priorities made it difficult for families to access follow-up care, though having community support alleviated these barriers. We suggest interventions to improve coordination of cancer treatment and CPS-related care and adherence to surveillance protocols for families as children age, such as care navigators and integrating longitudinal genetic counseling into hereditary cancer centers.

Research Participants' Perspectives on Precision Diagnostics for Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Understanding research participants' responses to learning Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk information is important to inform clinical implementation of precision diagnostics given rapid advances in disease modifying therapies. OBJECTIVE: We assessed participants' perspectives on the meaning of their amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging results for their health, self-efficacy to understand their results, psychological impact of learning their results, experience receiving their results from the clinical team, and interest in genetic testing for AD risk. METHODS: We surveyed individuals who were being clinically evaluated for AD and received PET imaging six weeks after the return of results. We analyzed responses to close-ended survey items by PET result using Fisher's exact test and qualitatively coded open-ended responses. RESULTS: A total of 88 participants completed surveys, most of whom had mild cognitive impairment due to AD (38.6%), AD (28.4%), or were cognitively unimpaired (21.6%). Participants subjectively understood their results (25.3% strongly agreed, 41.8% agreed), which could help them plan (16.5% strongly agreed, 49.4% agreed). Participants with a negative PET result (n = 25) reported feelings of relief (Fisher's exact p < 0.001) and happiness (p < 0.001) more frequently than those with a positive result. Most participants felt that they were treated respectfully and were comfortable voicing concerns during the disclosure process. Genetic testing was anticipated to be useful for medical care decisions (48.2%) and to inform family members about AD risk (42.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Participants had high subjective understanding and self-efficacy around their PET results and did not experience negative psychological effects. Interest in genetic testing was high.

Policy options to facilitate cancer genomic variant data sharing: outcomes of a modified policy Delphi.

Sharing cancer gene variant and relevant clinical data could accelerate progress in cancer genomics. However, data sharing is currently impeded by issues related to financial sustainability, equity, incentives, privacy and security, and data quality. Evidence-based policy options to facilitate data sharing in these domains, and ultimately improve interpretation of cancer-associated genomic variants, are therefore needed. We conducted a modified policy Delphi with expert stakeholders that involved generating, evaluating, and ranking potential policy options to address these issues, with a focus on the US context. We found policy options in the financial sustainability domain were highly ranked, particularly stable funding for trusted entities. However, some Delphi panelists noted that the culture of public research funding has favored short-term grants. Panelists favored policy options focused on action by funders, which had the highest overall total scores that combined effectiveness and feasibility ratings and priority ranking within domains. Panelists also endorsed some policy options connected to actors such as journals, but they were more skeptical of policy options connected to legislative actors and data resources. These findings are critical inputs for policy makers as they consider policies to enable sharing of cancer gene variant data to improve health.

Fresh takes on five health data sharing domains: Quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability.

As entities around the world invest in repositories and other infrastructure to facilitate health data sharing, scalable solutions to data sharing challenges are needed. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 experts to explore views on potential issues and policy options related to health data sharing. In this Perspective, we describe and contextualize unconventional insights shared by our interviewees relevant to issues in five domains: data quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability. These insights question a focus on granular quality metrics for gatekeeping; challenge enthusiasm for maximalist risk disclosure practices; call attention to power dynamics that potentially compromise the patient's voice; encourage faith in the sharing proclivities of new generations of scientists; and endorse accounting for personal disposition in the selection of long-term partners. We consider the merits of each insight with the broad goal of encouraging creative thinking to address data sharing challenges.

Public mental health during and after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Opportunities for intervention via emotional self-efficacy and resilience.

Importance: During the pandemic, the number of United States adults reporting clinically significant symptoms of anxiety and depression sky-rocketed, up from 11% in 2020 to more than 40% in 2021. Our current mental healthcare system cannot adequately accommodate the current crisis; it is therefore important to identify opportunities for public mental health interventions. Objective: Assess whether modifiable emotional factors may offer a point of intervention for the mental health crisis. Design setting and participants: From January 13 to 15, 2022, adults living in the United States were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk to complete an anonymous survey. Main outcomes and measures: Linear regressions tested whether the primary outcomes during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (depressive and anxiety symptoms, burnout) were associated with hypothesized modifiable risk factors (loneliness and need for closure) and hypothesized modifiable protective factors (the ability to perceive emotions and connect with others emotionally; emotion-regulation efficacy; and resilience, or the ability to "bounce back" after negative events). Results: The sample included 1,323 adults (mean [SD] age 41.42 [12.52] years; 636 women [48%]), almost half of whom reported clinically significant depressive (29%) and/or anxiety (15%) symptoms. Approximately 90% of participants indicated feeling burned out at least once a year and nearly half of participants (45%) felt burned out once a week or more. In separate analyses, depressive symptoms (Model A), anxiety symptoms (Model B), and burnout (Model C) were statistically significantly associated with loneliness (ßModel A, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.33-0.43; ßModel B, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.26-0.36; ßModel C, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.28-0.41), need for closure (ßModel A, 0.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; ßModel B, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.97-0.17; ßModel C, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.07-0.16), recent stressful life events (ßModel A, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.17; ßModel B, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.11-0.18; ßModel C, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.15), and resilience (ßModel A, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.15 to -0.05; ßModel B, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.13; ßModel C, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.05). In addition, depressive and anxiety symptoms were associated with emotional self-efficacy (ßModel A, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.22 to -0.12; ßModel B, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.06), and beliefs about the malleability of emotions (ßModel A, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.03; ßModel B, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.04). Associations between loneliness and symptoms were weaker among those with more emotional self-efficacy, more endorsement of emotion malleability beliefs, and greater resilience, in separate models. Analyses controlled for recent stressful life events, optimism, and social desirability. Conclusion and relevance: Public mental health interventions that teach resilience in response to negative events, emotional self-efficacy, and emotion-regulation efficacy may protect against the development of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and burnout, particularly in the context of a collective trauma. Emotional self-efficacy and regulation efficacy may mitigate the association between loneliness and mental health, but loneliness prevention research is also needed to address the current mental health crisis.

Views of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and Their Oncologists Toward Patients' Participation in Genomic Research.

Purpose: With increased use of genomic testing in cancer research and clinical care, it is important to understand the perspectives and decision-making preferences of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer and their treating oncologists. Methods: We conducted an interview substudy of the BASIC3 Study, which enrolled newly diagnosed cancer patients <18 years of age with assent. Of 32 young adults (YAs) with cancer who reached the age of majority (AOM; 18 years) while on study, 12 were successfully approached and all consented to study continuation at AOM. Of those, seven completed an interview. Patients' oncologists, who enrolled and participated in return of clinical genomic results, were also interviewed (n = 12). Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: YAs cited the possibility of helping others and advancing science as major reasons for their assent to initial study enrollment and their willingness to consent at AOM. YAs thought obtaining informed consent from research participants for study continuation at AOM was a good idea in case they changed their minds or wanted to make their own decisions, and to keep them aware of study activities. There was diversity in what YAs understood and learned from genomic testing: some recalled specific findings, while some remembered minimal information about their results. Oncologists varied in their assessment of adolescents' engagement with the study and understanding of their results. Conclusion: Given the different ways AYAs engage with genomic information, careful assessment of AYAs' diverse communication and decision-making preferences is needed to tailor interactions accordingly.

Researcher Views on Changes in Personality, Mood, and Behavior in Next-Generation Deep Brain Stimulation.

The literature on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises concerns that these technologies may affect personality, mood, and behavior. We conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers (n = 23) involved in developing next-generation DBS systems, exploring their perspectives on ethics and policy topics including whether DBS/aDBS can cause such changes. The majority of researchers reported being aware of personality, mood, or behavioral (PMB) changes in recipients of DBS/aDBS. Researchers offered varying estimates of the frequency of PMB changes. A smaller majority reported changes in personality specifically. Some expressed reservations about the scientific status of the term 'personality,' while others used it freely. Most researchers discussed negative PMB changes, but a majority said that DBS/aDBS can also result in positive changes. Several researchers viewed positive PMB changes as part of the therapeutic goal in psychiatric applications of DBS/aDBS. Finally, several discussed potential causes of PMB changes other than the device itself.

Conducting clinical genomics research during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from the CSER consortium experience.

Clinical research studies have navigated many changes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to describe the pandemic's impact on research operations in the context of a clinical genomics research consortium that aimed to enroll a majority of participants from underrepresented populations. We interviewed (July to November 2020) and surveyed (May to August 2021) representatives of six projects in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, which studies the implementation of genome sequencing in the clinical care of patients from populations that are underrepresented in genomics research or are medically underserved. Questions focused on COVID's impact on participant recruitment, enrollment, and engagement, and the transition to teleresearch. Responses were combined and thematically analyzed. Projects described factors at the project, institutional, and community levels that affected their experiences. Project factors included the project's progress at the pandemic's onset, the urgency of in-person clinical care for the disease being studied, and the degree to which teleresearch procedures were already incorporated. Institutional and community factors included institutional guidance for research and clinical care and the burden of COVID on the local community. Overall, being responsive to community experiences and values was essential to how CSER navigated evolving challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lessons learned and recommendations for data coordination in collaborative research: The CSER consortium experience.

Integrating data across heterogeneous research environments is a key challenge in multi-site, collaborative research projects. While it is important to allow for natural variation in data collection protocols across research sites, it is also important to achieve interoperability between datasets in order to reap the full benefits of collaborative work. However, there are few standards to guide the data coordination process from project conception to completion. In this paper, we describe the experiences of the Clinical Sequence Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium Data Coordinating Center (DCC), which coordinated harmonized survey and genomic sequencing data from seven clinical research sites from 2020 to 2022. Using input from multiple consortium working groups and from CSER leadership, we first identify 14 lessons learned from CSER in the categories of communication, harmonization, informatics, compliance, and analytics. We then distill these lessons learned into 11 recommendations for future research consortia in the areas of planning, communication, informatics, and analytics. We recommend that planning and budgeting for data coordination activities occur as early as possible during consortium conceptualization and development to minimize downstream complications. We also find that clear, reciprocal, and continuous communication between consortium stakeholders and the DCC is equally important to maintaining a secure and centralized informatics ecosystem for pooling data. Finally, we discuss the importance of actively interrogating current approaches to data governance, particularly for research studies that straddle the research-clinical divide.

Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services.

In recent decades, genetic genealogy has become popular as a result of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Some DTC genetic testing companies offer genetic relative-finder (GRF) services that compare the DNA of consenting participants to identify genetic relatives among them and provide each participant a list of their relative matches. We surveyed a convenience sample of GRF service participants to understand the prevalence of discoveries and associated experiences. Almost half (46%) of the 23,196 respondents had participated in GRF services only for non-specific reasons that included interest in building family trees and general curiosity. However, most (82%) also learned the identity of at least one genetic relative. Separately, most respondents (61%) reported learning something new about themselves or their relatives, including potentially disruptive information such as that a person they believed to be their biological parent is in fact not or that they have a sibling they had not known about. Respondents generally reported that discovering this new information had a neutral or positive impact on their lives, and most had low regret regarding their decision to participate in GRF services. Yet some reported making life changes as a result of their discoveries. Compared to respondents making other types of discoveries, those who learned that they were donor conceived reported the highest decisional regret and represented the largest proportion reporting net-negative consequences for themselves. Our findings indicate that discoveries from GRF services may be common and that the consequences for individuals, while generally positive, can be far-reaching and complex.

Effects of participation in a U.S. trial of newborn genomic sequencing on parents at risk for depression.

Much emphasis has been placed on participant's psychological safety within genomic research studies; however, few studies have addressed parental psychological health effects associated with their child's participation in genomic studies, particularly when parents meet the threshold for clinical concern for depression. We aimed to determine if parents' depressive symptoms were associated with their child's participation in a randomized-controlled trial of newborn exome sequencing. Parents completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) at baseline, immediately post-disclosure, and 3 months post-disclosure. Mothers and fathers scoring at or above thresholds for clinical concern on the EPDS, 12 and 10, respectively, indicating possible Major Depressive Disorder with Peripartum Onset, were contacted by study staff for mental health screening. Parental concerns identified in follow-up conversations were coded for themes. Forty-five parents had EPDS scores above the clinical threshold at baseline, which decreased by an average of 2.9 points immediately post-disclosure and another 1.1 points 3 months post-disclosure (both p ≤ .014). For 28 parents, EPDS scores were below the threshold for clinical concern at baseline, increased by an average of 4.7 points into the elevated range immediately post-disclosure, and decreased by 3.8 points at 3 months post-disclosure (both p < .001). Nine parents scored above thresholds only at 3 months post-disclosure after increasing an average of 5.7 points from immediately post-disclosure (p < .001). Of the 82 parents who scored above the threshold at any time point, 43 (52.4%) were reached and 30 (69.7%) of these 43 parents attributed their elevated scores to parenting stress, balancing work and family responsibilities, and/or child health concerns. Only three parents (7.0%) raised concerns about their participation in the trial, particularly their randomization to the control arm. Elevated scores on the EPDS were typically transient and parents attributed their symptomatology to life stressors in the postpartum period rather than participation in a trial of newborn exome sequencing.

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking. METHODS: Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them. RESULTS: CSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

Patient, Caregiver, and Decliner Perspectives on Whether to Enroll in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Research.

This research study provides patient and caregiver perspectives as to whether or not to undergo adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) research. A total of 51 interviews were conducted in a multi-site study including patients undergoing aDBS and their respective caregivers along with persons declining aDBS. Reasons highlighted for undergoing aDBS included hopes for symptom alleviation, declining quality of life, desirability of being in research, and altruism. The primary reasons for not undergoing aDBS issues were practical rather than specific to aDBS technology, although some persons highlighted a desire to not be the first to trial the new technology. These themes are discussed in the context of "push" factors wherein any form of surgical intervention is preferable to none and "pull" factors wherein opportunities to contribute to science combine with hopes and/or expectations for the alleviation of symptoms. We highlight the significance of study design in decision making. aDBS is an innovative technology and not a completely new technology. Many participants expressed value in being part of research as an important consideration. We suggest that there are important implications when comparing patient perspectives vs. theoretical perspectives on the choice for or against aDBS. Additionally, it will be important how we communicate with patients especially in reference to the complexity of study design. Ultimately, this study reveals that there are benefits and potential risks when choosing a research study that involves implantation of a medical device.

Behavioral and psychological impact of genome sequencing: a pilot randomized trial of primary care and cardiology patients.

Many expect genome sequencing (GS) to become routine in patient care and preventive medicine, but uncertainties remain about its ability to motivate participants to improve health behaviors and the psychological impact of disclosing results. In a pilot trial with exploratory analyses, we randomized 100 apparently healthy, primary-care participants and 100 cardiology participants to receive a review of their family histories of disease, either alone or in addition to GS analyses. GS results included polygenic risk information for eight cardiometabolic conditions. Overall, no differences were observed between the percentage of participants in the GS and control arms, who reported changes to health behaviors such as diet and exercise at 6 months post disclosure (48% vs. 36%, respectively, p = 0.104). In the GS arm, however, the odds of reporting a behavior change increased by 52% per high-risk polygenic prediction (p = 0.032). Mean anxiety and depression scores for GS and control arms had confidence intervals within equivalence margins of ±1.5. Mediation analyses suggested an indirect impact of GS on health behaviors by causing positive psychological responses (p ≤ 0.001). Findings suggest that GS did not distress participants. Future research on GS in more diverse populations is needed to confirm that it does not raise risks for psychological harms and to confirm the ability of polygenic risk predictions to motivate preventive behaviors.

Pediatric Oncologists' Experiences Returning and Incorporating Genomic Sequencing Results into Cancer Care.

Pediatric oncologists' perspectives around returning and incorporating tumor and germline genomic sequencing (GS) results into cancer care are not well-described. To inform optimization of cancer genomics communication, we assessed oncologists' experiences with return of genomic results (ROR), including their preparation/readiness for ROR, collaboration with genetic counselors (GCs) during ROR, and perceived challenges. The BASIC3 study paired pediatric oncologists with GCs to return results to patients' families. We thematically analyzed 24 interviews with 12 oncologists at two post-ROR time points. Oncologists found pre-ROR meetings with GCs and geneticists essential to interpreting patients' reports and communicating results to families. Most oncologists took a collaborative ROR approach where they discussed tumor findings and GCs discussed germline findings. Oncologists perceived many roles for GCs during ROR, including answering families' questions and describing information in lay language. Challenges identified included conveying uncertain information in accessible language, limits of oncologists' genetics expertise, and navigating families' emotional responses. Oncologists emphasized how GCs' and geneticists' support was essential to ROR, especially for germline findings. GS can be successfully integrated into cancer care, but to account for the GC shortage, alternative ROR models and access to genetics resources will be needed to better support families and avoid burdening oncologists.

How Biomedical Citizen Scientists Define What They Do: It's All in the Name.

BACKGROUND: As citizen science continues to grow in popularity, there remains disagreement about what terms should be used to describe citizen science activities and participants. The question of how to self-identify has important ethical, political, and practical implications to the extent that shared language reflects a common ethos and goals and shapes behavior. Biomedical citizen science in particular has come to be associated with terms that reflect its unique activities, concerns, and priorities. To date, however, there is scant evidence regarding how biomedical citizen scientists prefer to describe themselves, their work, and the values that they attach to these terms. METHODS: In 2018, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 biomedical citizen scientists in connection with a larger study to understand ownership preferences. Interview data were analyzed to identify the terms that interviewees used and avoided to describe themselves and their work, as well as the reasons for their preferences. RESULTS: Biomedical citizen scientists self-identified using three main terms: citizen scientist, biohacker, and community scientist. However, there was a lack of consensus among interviewees on the appropriateness of each term, two of which prompted conflicting responses. Self-identification preferences were based on personal judgments about whether specific terms convey respect, are provocative, or are broad and inclusive, as well as the desirability of each of these messages. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of consensus about self-identification preferences in biomedical citizen science reflects the diversity of experiences and goals of individuals participating in this field, as well as different perceptions of the values signaled by and implications of using each term. Heterogeneity of preferences also may signal the parallel development of multiple communities in biomedical citizen science.

Researcher Perspectives on Ethical Considerations in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Trials.

Interest and investment in closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) systems have quickly expanded due to this neurotechnology's potential to more safely and effectively treat refractory movement and psychiatric disorders compared to conventional DBS. A large neuroethics literature outlines potential ethical concerns about conventional DBS and aDBS systems. Few studies, however, have examined stakeholder perspectives about ethical issues in aDBS research and other next-generation DBS devices. To help fill this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers involved in aDBS trials (n = 23) to gain insight into the most pressing ethical questions in aDBS research and any concerns about specific features of aDBS devices, including devices' ability to measure brain activity, automatically adjust stimulation, and store neural data. Using thematic content analysis, we identified 8 central themes in researcher responses. The need to measure and store neural data for aDBS raised concerns among researchers about data privacy and security issues (noted by 91% of researchers), including the avoidance of unintended or unwanted third-party access to data. Researchers reflected on the risks and safety (83%) of aDBS due to the experimental nature of automatically modulating then observing stimulation effects outside a controlled clinical setting and in relation to need for surgical battery changes. Researchers also stressed the importance of ensuring informed consent and adequate patient understanding (74%). Concerns related to automaticity and device programming (65%) were discussed, including current uncertainties about biomarker validity. Additionally, researchers discussed the potential impacts of automatic stimulation on patients' autonomy and control over stimulation (57%). Lastly, researchers discussed concerns related to patient selection (defining criteria for candidacy) (39%), challenges of ensuring post-trial access to care and device maintenance (39%), and potential effects on personality and identity (30%). To help address researcher concerns, we discuss the need to minimize cybersecurity vulnerabilities, advance biomarker validity, promote the balance of device control between patients and clinicians, and enhance ongoing informed consent. The findings from this study will help inform policies that will maximize the benefits and minimize potential harms of aDBS and other next-generation DBS devices.

Educating military primary health-care providers in genomic medicine: lessons learned from the MilSeq Project.

PURPOSE: With few trained genetics professionals, the Military Health System is ill-equipped to manage the rapid expansion of genomic medicine. The MilSeq Project introduces an alternative service delivery model (ASDM) in which primary health-care providers (HCPs) provide post-test counseling (PTC) to healthy Airmen who have undergone exome sequencing. We describe HCP performance after a prerequisite educational intervention (EI). METHODS: After a brief EI and pre-/posteducation surveys, HCPs were eligible to provide PTC with a genetic counselor available for consult. PTC was recorded, transcribed, and reviewed. Opportunities for improvement were organized into four error adjustment categories: (1) knowledge limitation, (2) minor, (3) moderate, and (4) critical. Thematic analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Pre-/posteducation survey responses revealed statistically significant improvements in all domains. Minor error adjustments were most represented (n = 93), followed by knowledge limitation (n = 39) and moderate (n = 19). No critical errors were identified, and 17 transcripts required no adjustment. Thematic analysis revealed four themes that would benefit from more focused education: (1) family-centered care, (2) conveying risk, (3) disease knowledge, and (4) assay knowledge. CONCLUSION: HCPs demonstrated competence in basic PTC after a brief EI. This ASDM may be a viable interim response to the shortage of genetics professionals in some systems.