"I would like to discuss it further with an expert": a focus group study of Finnish adults' perspectives on genetic secondary findings

A randomized controlled trial of analogue pharmacogenomic testing feedback for psychotropic medications

Objective

To examine the impact of various presentations of pharmacogenomic testing results using a published, color-coded decision support tool (DST) format as a standard stimulus to list possible medications.

Methods

Participants were randomly assigned to groups and asked to decide which psychotropic medication they would prefer if depressed. Three of the groups varied the color-coded category of fluoxetine and received a statement indicating that this was the most prescribed drug for depression. A fourth control condition omitted base rate information. Participants also provided detail about their decision-making processes through a qualitative interview.

Results

Comparison of the first three groups indicated that significantly more participants selected medications from the highest category of likely effectiveness when fluoxetine appeared in this list. Comparison of the control group to its relevant analogue suggested no significant differences in selection strategy. Qualitative interview responses indicated participant comfort with genetic testing despite awareness of having very limited understanding of these techniques and their implications.

Conclusions

Both DST color-coding and base rates were influential in driving drug selection decisions, despite most participants indicating they did not understand this information.

Innovation

Efforts to standardize pharmacogenomic stimuli may lead to advances in methods of studying quantifiable healthcare decisions. Attention to the context for presenting test results may also be a useful source of understanding patient responses, particularly regarding complex tests that are likely to be interpreted heuristically.

A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings

Exome-based testing for genetic diseases can reveal unsolicited findings (UFs), i.e. predispositions for diseases that exceed the diagnostic question. Knowledge of patients’ interpretation of possible UFs and of motives for (not) wanting to know UFs is still limited. This lacking knowledge may impede effective counselling that meets patients’ needs. Therefore, this article examines the meaning of UFs from a patient perspective. A qualitative study was conducted and an interpretative phenomenological analysis was made of 14 interviews with patients with an inherited retinal disease. Patients assign a complex meaning to UFs, including three main components. The first component focuses on result-specific qualities, i.e. the characteristics of an UF (inclusive of actionability, penetrance, severity and age of onset) and the consequences of disclosure; the second component applies to a patient’s lived illness experiences and to the way these contrast with reflections on presymptomatic UFs; the third component addresses a patient’s family embedding and its effect on concerns about disease prognosis and genetic information’s family relevance. The complex meaning structure of UFs suggests the need for counselling procedures that transcend a strictly clinical approach. Counselling should be personalised and consider patients’ lived illness experiences and family context.

Attitudes towards genetic testing and information: does parenthood shape the views?

This study examines how parents of pediatric patients might differ in their views and attitudes towards genetic technology and information when compared to adult patients. There is surprisingly little evidence on how parents compare to other parts of population in their attitudes. Previous empirical studies often relate health-related preferences and attitudes to factors such as age, education, and income instead of parental status, thus evading comparison of parents to others as health-related decision makers. Findings related to the parental status can be useful when implementing genetic technology in clinical practice. We conducted a survey of views on genetic technology and information for groups of adult neurology patients (n = 68) and parents of pediatric neurology patients (n = 31) to shed some light on this issue. In addition to our own survey instrument, we conducted other surveys to gain insight on psychosocial factors that might affect these attitudes. The results suggest that parents are more concerned about their children's genetic risk factors when compared to the attitudes of adult patients about their own risk. For both groups, negative emotional state was associated with more concerns towards genetic information. Our study provides insights on how parental views might affect the acceptance of genetic technology and information.