Race, ethnicity, and ancestry reporting in genetic counseling research: A focused mapping review and synthesis.

Studies on the use of Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry (REA) concepts and terms in genetic research are limited. We aimed to describe the collection, reporting, and use of REA data in genetic counseling research. We undertook a focused mapping review and synthesis of the Journal of Genetic Counseling 2021 publications. We used a mapping proforma based on the Race, Ethnicity, And Culture in Health checklist to extract data. Of the 177 screened articles, 132 met our inclusion criteria of reporting primary data about participants. The sample REA characteristics were described in 80 (61%) articles, with 6% providing a definition or conceptualization of the REA term/s used and 23% including a rationale for their study in terms of REA factors. Group labels were most often reported using population descriptors, such as "race," "ethnicity," "race/ethnicity," and "ancestry." Several group labels were used under different population descriptors. For instance, the group labels "White" and "Asian" were used under all population descriptors. Most studies (79%) ascertained REA characteristics by participants' self-report. Three (15%) of the 20 qualitative studies mentioned the relevance of the interviewers' REA characteristics in relation to the participants' REA characteristics. Of the 55 quantitative studies, 19 (35%) used REA factors in the data analysis. Of the 80 articles describing the sample REA characteristics, 20% referred moderately or a great deal to any REA factors in the results interpretation, 46% acknowledged the REA factors in the study limitations, and 15% discussed the implications of REA reporting for genetic counseling practice. Our review documents extensive variation in how sample REA characteristics are described and used in genetic counseling research. Our findings provide a baseline against which to evaluate the effects of guidelines and recommendations for the collection, responsible use, and report of participants' REA characteristics in genetic counseling research.

A survey of genetic and palliative care health professionals' views of integrating genetics into palliative care.

Genetic counselling and testing have utility for people with palliative care needs and their families. However, genetic and palliative care health professionals have described difficulties initiating palliative-genetic discussions. Between March and July 2022, we received n = 73 surveys (6% response rate) from genetic and palliative care health professionals in Australia and New Zealand that assessed and compared barriers and facilitators. The main perceived barrier to both groups was palliative care health professionals' lack of genetic knowledge (44%). Most palliative care health professionals were 'not at all confident' performing several activities, including discussing DNA banking (52%) and knowing their legal responsibilities when sharing genetic information (58%). The most frequently selected facilitator for genetic health professionals was fostering close relationships with palliative care health professionals (52%), while palliative care health professionals indicated a genetic referral template (51%) would be of assistance. Almost all participants agreed genetic discussions do not undermine the central ethos of palliative care (87%). Fewer palliative care health professionals considered themselves well situated to have genetic discussions with a palliative patient's family compared to genetic health professionals (p = 0.014). Our results suggest that genetic and palliative care health professionals support integrating genetics into palliative care, although refinement of the palliative care health professionals' role in this process is required. We have identified intervention targets to overcome barriers related to knowledge and confidence, which ought to be integrated into future interventions designed to support health professionals deliver the benefits of genetic information to people with palliative care needs and their families.

The Parent PrU: A measure to assess personal utility of pediatric genomic results.

PURPOSE: We aimed to adapt and validate an existing patient-reported outcome measure, the personal-utility (PrU) scale, for use in the pediatric genomic context. METHODS: We adapted the adult version of the PrU and obtained feedback from 6 parents whose child had undergone sequencing. The resulting measure, the Parent PrU, was administered to parents of children in 4 pediatric cohorts of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium after they received their children's genomic results. We investigated the measure's structural validity and internal consistency. RESULTS: We conducted a principal-axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation on data from 755 participants to determine structural validity. These analyses yielded a 3-factor solution, accounting for 76% of the variance in the 16 items. We used Cronbach's α to assess the internal consistency of each factor: (1) child benefits (α = .95), (2) affective parent benefits (α = .90), and (3) parent control (α = .94). CONCLUSION: Our evidence suggests that the Parent PrU scale has potential as a measure for assessing parent-reported personal utility of their children's genomic results. Additional research is needed to further validate the Parent PrU scale, including by comparing its findings with utility assessments reported by clinicians and children themselves.

Parents' preferences for receiving and discussing prognostic genetic information regarding their children's neurodevelopmental condition: A qualitative study.

AIM: To investigate parents' preferences and motivations for receiving and discussing prognostic genetic test results. METHOD: We used a cross-sectional, interpretive description qualitative study design. We collected data through semi-structured interviews with Australian parents, which we analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Parents (n = 32) had a child or children with a genetic neurodevelopmental condition, such as fragile X syndrome, DiGeorge (22q11.2 deletion) syndrome, or Angelman syndrome. Parents of mildly impacted or older children were tolerant to prognostic uncertainty. Parents found conversations about their child's prognosis emotional and preferred to discuss their child's potential strengths and challenges. While most were enthusiastic about prognostic tests and described many motivations for testing, the potential for prognostic information to contribute to a loss of hope and stigmatizing societal views were also discussed. INTERPRETATION: Parents had mixed preferences and motivations for acquiring prognostic genetic information about their child, contrasting evidence in other contexts such as cancer where parents typically have minimal tolerance of uncertainty. Health professionals should consider strength-based framing of prognostic information gained from current and emerging technologies when returning results to families.

Extending an Antiracism Lens to the Implementation of Precision Public Health Interventions.

Precision public health holds promise to improve disease prevention and health promotion strategies, allowing the right intervention to be delivered to the right population at the right time. Growing concerns underscore the potential for precision-based approaches to exacerbate health disparities by relying on biased data inputs and recapitulating existing access inequities. To achieve its full potential, precision public health must focus on addressing social and structural drivers of health and prominently incorporate equity-related concerns, particularly with respect to race and ethnicity. In this article, we discuss how an antiracism lens could be applied to reduce health disparities and health inequities through equity-informed research, implementation, and evaluation of precision public health interventions. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(11):1210-1218. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307386).

Special Issue: "Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing in Precision Medicine".

Progress in genomic technologies has spurred innovation in healthcare and medicine, contributing to improved health and well-being [...].

Genetic Testing and Other Healthcare Use by Black and White Individuals in a Genomic Sequencing Study.

INTRODUCTION: Early adopters play a critical role in the diffusion of medical innovations by spreading awareness, increasing acceptability, and driving demand. Understanding the role of race in the context of other characteristics of potential early adopters can shed light on disparities seen in the early implementation of genomic medicine. We aimed to understand the association between self-identified race and individual experience with genetic testing outside of the research context. METHODS: We assessed factors associated with the odds of having ever received genetic testing prior to enrollment in a genomic sequencing study among 674 self-identified white and 407 self-identified African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean ("Black") individuals. RESULTS: Controlling for individual determinants of healthcare use (demographics, personality traits, knowledge and attitudes, and health status), identifying as Black was associated with lower odds of prior genetic testing (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.27-0.68], p < 0.001). In contrast, self-identified race was not associated with the use of non-genetic clinical screening tests (e.g., echocardiogram, colonoscopy). Black and white individuals were similar on self-reported personality traits tied to early adoption but differed by sociodemographic and resource facilitators of early adoption. CONCLUSION: Persistent racial disparities among early adopters may represent especially-entrenched disparities in access to and knowledge of genomic technologies in clinical settings.

Motivations to learn genomic information are not exceptional: Lessons from behavioral science.

Whether to undergo genome sequencing in a clinical or research context is generally a voluntary choice. Individuals are often motivated to learn genomic information even when clinical utility-the possibility that the test could inform medical recommendations or health outcomes-is low or absent. Motivations to seek one's genomic information can be cognitive, affective, social, or mixed (e.g., cognitive and affective) in nature. These motivations are based on the perceived value of the information, specifically, its clinical utility and personal utility. We suggest that motivations to learn genomic information are no different from motivations to learn other types of personal information, including one's health status and disease risk. Here, we review behavioral science relevant to motivations that may drive engagement with genome sequencing, both in the presence of varying degrees of clinical utility and in the absence of clinical utility. Specifically, we elucidate 10 motivations that are expected to underlie decisions to undergo genome sequencing. Recognizing these motivations to learn genomic information will guide future research and ultimately help clinicians to facilitate informed decision making among individuals as genome sequencing becomes increasingly available.

Free Online Decision Tools to Support Parents Making Decisions About Their Children's Chronic Health Condition: An Environmental Scan.

BACKGROUND: Medical decisions parents make on their children's behalf can be challenging. Free online decision support tools are created to help parents faced with these decisions. OBJECTIVE: We used an environmental scan to identify free, online tools that support parents in making decisions about their children's chronic health condition. We described the tools and assessed their potential to harm, content, development process, readability, and whether their use changed decision makers' knowledge and alignment of their preferences with their final decision. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY: Decision aid repositories, Google searches, and key informants identified decision support tools. Eligible tools were freely available online and for parents of children with chronic health conditions. APPRAISAL METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed the tools' quality based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Tool readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease test. RESULTS: From 21 free, online decision support tools, 14 (67%) provided sufficient detail for making a specific decision (IPDAS qualifying criteria). None sufficiently met IPDAS certification criteria necessary to reduce the possibility of patient harms when using the tool. Three (14%) were fairly easy or easy to read. Of those evaluated by developers (n = 6), 2 improved knowledge and 4 improved alignment of preferences with the available options. LIMITATIONS: Google searches and key informant sources are not replicable. CONCLUSIONS: Free, online decision support tools for parents of children with chronic health conditions are of variable quality, most are difficult to read, and there is limited evidence their use achieves intended outcomes. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered with Open Science Framework 20 July 2021(AEST) osf.io/b94yj.

Do Teachers Question the Reality of Pain in Their Students? A Survey Using the Concept of Pain Inventory-Proxy (COPI-Proxy).

An assessment of a teacher's concept of their student's pain could be useful to guide preventative and targeted school-based pain science education. We aimed to assess a teacher's own concept of pain against their concept of their student's pain and examine the psychometric properties of the tool. Teachers of 10-12-year-old children were invited to participate in an online survey via social media. We modified the Concept of Pain Inventory (COPI) by inserting a vignette (COPI-Proxy), and we included questions to explore teacher stigma. Overall, a sample of 233 teachers participated in the survey. The COPI-Proxy scores showed that teachers can conceptualize their student's pain separately but are influenced by their own beliefs. Only 76% affirmed the pain in the vignette as real. Teachers used potentially stigmatizing language to describe pain in their survey responses. The COPI-Proxy had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.72) and moderate convergent validity with the COPI (r = 0.56). The results show the potential benefit of the COPI-Proxy for assessing someone's concept of another's pain, particularly for teachers who are important social influencers of children.

Approaching discussions about genetics with palliative patients and their families: a qualitative exploration with genetic health professionals.

Genetic information can provide clinical benefits to families of palliative patients. However, integration of genetics into mainstream medicine has not focused on palliative populations. We explored the views and experiences of genetic health professionals in addressing genetics with palliative patients, and their families. We conducted an interpretive descriptive qualitative study with genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists using interviews and focus groups. Findings were generated using reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes were identified: (1) Focusing on the benefit to the family, (2) The discomfort of addressing genetics near end-of-life and (3) "It's always on the back-burner": Challenges to getting genetics on the palliative care agenda. Participants discussed the familial benefit of genetics in palliative care alongside the challenges when patients are near end-of-life. They perceived genetics as low priority for palliative care due to misunderstandings related to the value of genetic information. Acknowledging the challenges in the palliative care context, genetic health professionals want improved service leadership and awareness of the familial benefits of palliative genetic testing. Strong leadership to support genetic health professionals in addressing these barriers is needed for the benefits of genetic information to be realised.

The PrU: Development and validation of a measure to assess personal utility of genomic results.

PURPOSE: People report experiencing value from learning genomic results even in the absence of clinically actionable information. Such personal utility has emerged as a key concept in genomic medicine. The lack of a validated patient-reported outcome measure of personal utility has impeded the ability to assess this concept among those receiving genomic results and evaluate the patient-perceived value of genomics. We aimed to construct and psychometrically evaluate a scale to measure personal utility of genomic results-the Personal Utility (PrU) scale. METHODS: We used an evidence-based, operational definition of personal utility, with data from a systematic literature review and Delphi survey to build a novel scale. After piloting with 24 adults, the PrU was administered to healthy adults in a Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium study after receiving results. We investigated the responses using exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis (N = 841 participants) resulted in a 3-factor solution, accounting for 74% of the variance in items: (1) self-knowledge (α = 0.92), (2) reproductive planning (α = 0.89), and (3) practical benefits (α = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of the 3-factor PrU to assess personal utility of genomic results. Validation of the PrU in other samples will be important for more wide-spread application.

Models of communication for polygenic scores and associated psychosocial and behavioral effects on recipients: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs. METHODS: Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021). RESULTS: In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4). CONCLUSION: PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.

Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma.

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists' perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours. Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education. Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling. Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.

Communicating Personal Melanoma Polygenic Risk Information: Participants' Experiences of Genetic Counseling in a Community-Based Study.

Personalized polygenic risk information may be used to guide risk-based melanoma prevention and early detection at a population scale, but research on communicating this information is limited. This mixed-methods study aimed to assess the acceptability of a genetic counselor (GC) phone call in communicating polygenic risk information in the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk randomized controlled trial. Participants (n = 509) received personalized melanoma polygenic risk information, an educational booklet on melanoma prevention, and a GC phone call, which was audio-recorded. Participants completed the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Survey 1-month after receiving their risk information (n = 346). A subgroup took part in a qualitative interview post-study completion (n = 20). Survey data were analyzed descriptively using SPSS, and thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using NVivo 12.0 software. The survey showed a high level of acceptability for the GC phone call (mean satisfaction score overall: 4.3 out of 5, standard deviation (SD): 0.6) with differences according to gender (mean score for women: 4.4, SD: 0.6 vs. men: 4.2, SD: 0.7; p = 0.005), health literacy (lower literacy: 4.1, SD: 0.8; average: 4.3, SD: 0.6; higher: 4.4, SD: 0.6: p = 0.02) and polygenic risk group (low risk: 4.5, SD: 0.5, SD: average: 4.3, SD: 0.7, high: 4.3, SD: 0.7; p = 0.03). During the GC phone calls, the discussion predominately related to the impact of past sun exposure on personal melanoma risk. Together our findings point to the importance of further exploring educational and support needs and preferences for communicating personalized melanoma risk among population subgroups, including diverse literacy levels.

Addressing underrepresentation in genomics research through community engagement.

The vision of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is that people everywhere will realize the benefits of human genetics and genomics. Implicit in that vision is the importance of ensuring that the benefits of human genetics and genomics research are realized in ways that minimize harms and maximize benefits, a goal that can only be achieved through focused efforts to address health inequities and increase the representation of underrepresented communities in genetics and genomics research. This guidance is intended to advance community engagement as an approach that can be used across the research lifecycle. Community engagement uniquely offers researchers in human genetics and genomics an opportunity to pursue that vision successfully, including by addressing underrepresentation in genomics research.

Precision Public Health Initiatives in Cancer: Proceedings from the Transdisciplinary Conference for Future Leaders in Precision Public Health.

BACKGROUND: Precision public health is an emergent field that requires transdisciplinary collaborations and leverages innovative approaches to improve population health. These opportunities have inspired a new generation of precision public health researchers. Despite burgeoning interest in precision public health, there are limited opportunities for researchers to convene and continue the momentum of this field. METHODS: The Transdisciplinary Conference for Future Leaders in Precision Public Health was the among the first events to bring together international researchers and practitioners to learn, network, and agenda set for the future of the field. The conference took place virtually on October 14 and 15, 2021. RESULTS: The conference spanned two days and featured a keynote address, speakers from public health disciplines who are international leaders in precision-based research, networking opportunities, a poster session, and research agenda setting activities. CONCLUSION: The conference was a critical first step to creating a shared international conversation about precision public health, especially among early-stage investigators. This allowed attendees to continue building their individual skills and international collaborations to support the growth of the field of precision public health.

Using a Participatory Approach to Develop Research Priorities for Future Leaders in Cancer-Related Precision Public Health.

Precision public health is an emerging discipline combining principles and frameworks of precision health with the goal of improving population health. The development of research priorities drawing on the strengths of precision and public health is critical to facilitate the growth of the discipline to improve health outcomes. We held an interactive workshop during a virtual conference bringing together early-career researchers across public health disciplines to identify research priorities in precision public health. The workshop participants discussed and voted to identify three priority areas for future research and capacity building including 1) enhancing equity and access to precision public health research and resources, 2) improving tools and metrics for evaluation and 3) applying principles of implementation science to support sustainable practices. Participants also developed future objectives for achieving each priority. Future efforts by working groups will continue the process of identifying, revising, and advancing critical research priorities to grow the impact of precision public health.

Do online decision aids reflect new prenatal screening and testing options? An environmental scan and content analysis.

Objective: Decision aids have been developed to help prospective parents make informed, shared decisions about medical tests, but these options are rapidly changing. This study aimed to identify and evaluate publicly available decision aids written in English for prospective parents seeking prenatal test information. Methods: A systematic review process was followed using 3 sources: known decision aid repositories, fetal medicine organisations and Google. The search, screening process, quality assessment, and data extraction was performed by two independent researchers. The quality assessment of the decision aids was based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS v.4.0). Results: We identified 13 decision aids, which varied in the screening and diagnostic tests that they discussed. No decision aid met all the IPDAS v.4.0. criteria and no decision aid reported updated risk of miscarriage for amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS). There was a lack of decision aids for some common decisions in the prenatal context. Conclusion: We identified outdated content in current prenatal decision aids. The findings will inform healthcare professionals of the quality of current prenatal decision aids, which may facilitate their patients' informed decision-making about prenatal tests. Innovation: Considerations for improving future decision aids are outlined.

Australasian Genetic Counselors' Perceptions of Their Role in Supporting Clients' Behavior Change.

Genetic testing does not always change health behavior. Effective behavior change requires a theory-driven coordinated set of activities (behavior change techniques). Genetic counselors are ideally positioned to facilitate behavior change. We aimed to explore genetic counselors' perceptions of their role in supporting clients' behavior change to inform the design of an intervention. Recruitment was via a professional organization and genetics services. Data were collected from 26 genetic counselors via qualitative focus groups/interview. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and mapped to the COM-B model. We identified three behaviors genetic counselors wanted clients to change: attend appointments, access information, and share information with family members. Strategies for changing clients' behavior included: assessing needs and capabilities, providing information and support, enabling and monitoring behavior change. Barriers included lack of behavior change skills and knowledge, lack of time, and beliefs about ownership of healthcare, directiveness of behavior change, and scope of practice. Equipping genetic counselors to deliver behavior change requires (i) education in behavior change theory and behavior change techniques, (ii) integration of capability, opportunity and motivation assessment into existing practice, and (iii) development of evidence-based strategies using behavior change tools to focus discussions and promote clients' agency to change their behavior.