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

Beyond the Diagnosis: Valuing Genome-Wide Sequencing for Rare Disease Diagnosis Using Contingent Valuation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The utility of genome-wide sequencing is often quantified in terms of its diagnostic yield. Although obtaining a diagnosis is a fundamental aspect of value, service users also value broader clinical, informational, process and psychological factors in the provision of genomic testing. This study aims to value genome-wide sequencing from the user perspective in Scotland.

METHODS

A survey was developed and administered to 1014 patients and families with experience of genome-wide sequencing to diagnose a rare condition in Scotland. Participants' willingness to pay for genomic testing was elicited using a contingent valuation payment card. The survey included two genomic-related patient-reported outcome measures: (i) the Personal Utility Scale (PrU) to generate scores for the personal utility of genome-wide sequencing; and (ii) a subscale of the Feelings About Genomic Testing Results (FACTOR) questionnaire to measure negative psychological outcomes. Data were also collected on participants' prior experiences of genomic testing services. A double-hurdle regression model investigated the predictors of patients' willingness to pay for genomic testing.

RESULTS

Of the 1014 invitations sent, 171 contingent valuation questionnaires were returned. Diagnosed participants reported higher personal utility on PrU than undiagnosed participants. However, both groups reported similar negative psychological outcomes on FACTOR. Diagnosed participants were willing to pay £2043 for genome-wide sequencing, compared with £835 for undiagnosed participants. Diagnostic status, waiting time for results and FACTOR scores (negative psychological outcomes) influenced users' valuations of genome-wide sequencing.

CONCLUSIONS

Obtaining a diagnosis is a fundamental component of utility in the provision of genomic testing. However, there is still value to those who do not receive a diagnosis. These results have implications for service delivery, such as providing targeted pre-test and post-test genetic counselling, and investing in efficient genome sequencing pipelines to reduce waiting times. Valuing the user experience of genomic testing aligns with patient-centred approaches to the provision of healthcare.

Exploring individuals' experiences with self-reported unmet need for genetic testing

In practice, healthcare systems and insurers determine that there is "need" for genetic testing when there is potential for clinical utility. However, it is not currently known how the public understands the need for genetic testing and if this aligns with clinical utility. We recruited participants in Canada through a survey distributed through a market research company (Leger Opinion Panel). Participants who self-reported the need for genetic testing were then purposively sampled to complete a semi-structured virtual interview. We used an interpretive description approach and reflexive thematic analysis. We completed 19 interviews and found that participants' self-identified need for genetic testing was informed by their experiences with genetic information and the perceptions that genetic information is actionable (clinical utility) and has personal meaning (personal utility). Most participants would not be eligible for funded testing based on their personal and family history, however, they had unmet informational and psychological needs, indicating unmet need for genetic counseling. The public understanding of the need for genetic testing is complex and varied. Participants identified many benefits resulting from genetic testing which are not reflected in how need is operationalized in reimbursement decisions, however unmet expectations for testing contributed to medical distrust and dissatisfaction.

The Concept of Personal Utility in Genomic Testing: Three Ethical Tensions

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has traditionally focused on efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. There has long been concern, however, that this is determined by the goals of healthcare providers/payers, not patients. As a result, HTA arguably fails to reflect the overall value of health technologies-including their "non-clinical" or "personal" utility to patients and their families. The use of genomic testing in clinical care is one domain where this problem is evident, as the personal utility of results is often especially significant. As such, there are growing calls for HTA frameworks to adopt personal utility as a distinct element of value when assessing clinical genomic tests. We agree that personal utility is important to HTA in clinical genomics. However, against a trend toward comprehensive conceptions of personal utility within HTA, we advocate for a restrictive approach to assessing the value of personal utility in the case of clinical genomic testing.

Parents' perceptions of the utility of genetic testing in the NICU

PURPOSE

Although several studies have evaluated the perspectives of parents in the neonatal intensive care unit on the utility of genetic testing in a research context and concluded with a positive appraisal, some data point to more varied perceptions.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted to elicit parental beliefs about the ways in which clinical (nonresearch) genetic testing could be both helpful and harmful.

RESULTS

We interviewed 43 parents of 36 neonates who were recommended and either accepted or declined to participate in clinical genetic testing. Parents described 5 types of problems they believed genetic information may address, what we term problem-solving contexts: treatment, coping, parenting, prognostic, and existential contexts. Most parents consider multiple problem-solving contexts when assessing benefits, which frequently results in ambivalence.

CONCLUSION

Parents in the neonatal intensive care unit appear to be more ambivalent about the utility of genetic information than has been reflected in most recent studies. This discrepancy is likely related to our sample population, clinical rather than research methodology, which encouraged parents to discuss contexts beyond the medical field. Our findings suggest that informed pretest consent discussions and posttest counseling should encourage parents to discuss multiple problem-solving contexts. Researchers should also find ways to incorporate multiple contexts and diverse perspectives into their utility measures.

A Standardized Measurement and Valuation Scale of Genomic Utility for Policy Decisions: The GUV Scale

OBJECTIVES

The multifaceted ways in which genomics can be valuable to clinicians, patients, families, and society are important for informing prioritization decisions by policy makers. This study aims to develop a standardized, cumulative, and preference-weighted genomic utility valuation (GUV) on a scale of 0% to 100%.

METHODS

A multicriteria decision analysis was conducted with experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia for the valuation of policy priority indicators of genomic utility. The use of the GUV scale to support policy decisions is illustrated through a stylized example, and benchmark scoring thresholds of genomic utility were identified by mapping evidence from real-world health technology assessments leading to the public reimbursement of genomic testing in Australia onto the GUV scale.

RESULTS

In total, 33 (73%) invited experts participated in the study. Clinical utility had the highest priority, followed by societal, diagnostic, economic, and family utilities. Improving health outcomes had the highest preference value (29.5%), followed by improving equity (22.6%), Having high diagnostic yield (22.2%), improving symptom management (15.5%), being cost saving (14.3%), having average diagnostic yield (13.1%), enabling access to clinical trials (12.3%), and enabling reproductive family planning (11.5%). Genomic testing scores from real-world health technology assessments ranged from 46% for syndromic and nonsyndromic intellectual disability to about 60% for mitochondrial conditions and genetic kidney diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparisons of genomic utility across different clinical contexts may seem difficult because of the multiple criteria required to be weighted to support policy decisions. This comparison is now facilitated in a standardized manner with the GUV scale.

Payer perspectives on genomic testing in the United States: A systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Health care stakeholders' perspectives on the value of genomic testing vary widely and directly affect the access and practice of genomic medicine. To our knowledge, a review of US health care payers' perspectives on genomic testing has not been performed.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of US payers' perspectives on genomic testing in the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Of the 161 nonduplicate records screened, we summarized findings from 20 included records, and using the framework method, common domains were recorded.

RESULTS

Domains included clinical utility, coverage decision frameworks, potential harms, costs, paying for research, demand/pressure, the flexibility of outcomes considered, and personal utility. There was consensus on the definition of clinical utility as improved health outcomes, and the nuances of genomic testing were reported as challenging to fit within existing coverage decision frameworks. Perspectives varied on accepting broader outcomes or uses of genomic testing and whether costs influence coverage decisions. Study methodologies were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

A deeper understanding of how payers approach genomic testing may allow comparison with other stakeholders' perspectives and may identify challenges, opportunities, and solutions to align a conceptual and evidentiary framework better to demonstrate the value of genomic testing.

Promise and Peril of a Genotype-First Approach to Mendelian Cardiovascular Disease

Precision medicine, which among other aspects includes an individual's genomic data in diagnosis and management, has become the standard-of-care for Mendelian cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, early identification and management of asymptomatic patients with potentially lethal and manageable Mendelian CVD through screening, which is the promise of precision health, remains an unsolved challenge. The reduced costs of genomic sequencing have enabled the creation of biobanks containing in-depth genetic and health information, which have facilitated the understanding of genetic variation, penetrance, and expressivity, moving us closer to the genotype-first screening of asymptomatic individuals for Mendelian CVD. This approach could transform health care by diagnostic refinement and facilitating prevention or therapeutic interventions. Yet, potential benefits must be weighed against the potential risks, which include evolving variant pathogenicity assertion or identification of variants with low disease penetrance; costly, stressful, and inappropriate diagnostic evaluations; negative psychological impact; disqualification for employment or of competitive sports; and denial of insurance. Furthermore, the natural history of Mendelian CVD is often unpredictable, making identification of those who will benefit from preventive measures a priority. Currently, there is insufficient evidence that population-based genetic screening for Mendelian CVD can reduce adverse outcomes at a reasonable cost to an extent that outweighs the harms of true-positive and false-positive results. Besides technical, clinical, and financial burdens, ethical and legal aspects pose unprecedented challenges. This review highlights key developments in the field of genotype-first approaches to Mendelian CVD and summarizes challenges with potential solutions that can pave the way for implementing this approach for clinical care.

Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for adult screening

PURPOSE

As population-based screening programs to identify genetic conditions in adults using genomic sequencing (GS) are increasingly available, validated patient-centered outcome measures are needed to understand participants' experience. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess the perceived utility of GS in the context of adult screening.

METHODS

Informed by a 5-domain conceptual model, we used a 5-step approach to instrument development and validation: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Adults undergoing risk-based or population-based GS who had received GS results as part of ongoing research studies participated in structured cognitive interviews and 2 rounds of surveys. After item pool refinement, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments.

RESULTS

We derived the 18-item Adult Screening version of the GENEtic Utility scale (total sum score α = .87). Mirroring the Pediatric Diagnostic version, the instrument has a 2-factor structure, including an Informational Utility subscale (14 items, α = .89) and an Emotional Utility subscale (4 items, α = .75). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS. Correlations of the Emotional Utility subscale with psychosocial impact and anxiety and depression were weak to moderate.

CONCLUSION

Initial psychometric testing of the Adult Screening GENEtic Utility scale demonstrates its promise, and additional validation in translational genomics research is warranted.

"Out of the blue": A qualitative study exploring the experiences of women and next of kin receiving unexpected results from BRA-STRAP research gene panel testing

In the genomic era, the availability of gene panel and whole genome/exome sequencing is rapidly increasing. Opportunities for providing former patients with new genetic information are also increasing over time and recontacting former patients with new information is likely to become more common. Breast cancer Refined Analysis of Sequence Tests-Risk And Penetrance (BRA-STRAP) is an Australian study of individuals who had previously undertaken BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing, with no pathogenic variants detected. Using a waiver of consent, stored DNA samples were retested using a breast/ovarian cancer gene panel and clinically significant results returned to the patient (or next of kin, if deceased). This qualitative study aimed to explore patient experiences, opinions, and expectations of recontacting in the Australian hereditary cancer setting. Participants were familial cancer clinic patients (or next of kin) who were notified of a new pathogenic variant identified via BRA-STRAP. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted approximately 6 weeks post-result. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Thirty participants (all female; average age = 57; range 36-84) were interviewed. Twenty-five were probands, and five were next of kin. Most women reported initial shock upon being recontacted with unexpected news, after having obtained a sense of closure related to their initial genetic testing experiences and cancer diagnosis. For most, this initial distress was short-lived, followed by a process of readjustment, meaning-making and adaptation that was facilitated by perceived clinical and personal utility of the information. Women were overall satisfied with the waiver of consent approach and recontacting process. Results are in line with previous studies suggesting that patients have positive attitudes about recontacting. Women in this study valued new genetic information gained from retesting and were satisfied with the BRA-STRAP recontact model. Practice implications to facilitate readjustment and promote psychosocial adaptation were identified.

Using polygenic risk modification to improve breast cancer prevention: study protocol for the PRiMo multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Established personal and familial risk factors contribute collectively to a woman's risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Existing clinical services offer genetic testing for pathogenic variants in high-risk genes to investigate these risks but recent information on the role of common genomic variants, in the form of a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS), has provided the potential to further personalise breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment. Data from cohort studies support the potential of an integrated risk assessment to improve targeted risk management but experience of this approach in clinical practice is limited.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The polygenic risk modification trial is an Australian multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial of integrated risk assessment including personal and family risk factors with inclusion of breast and ovarian PRS vs standard care. The study will enrol women, unaffected by cancer, undergoing predictive testing at a familial cancer clinic for a pathogenic variant in a known breast cancer (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC) predisposition gene (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, RAD51C, RAD51D). Array-based genotyping will be used to generate breast cancer (313 SNP) and ovarian cancer (36 SNP) PRS. A suite of materials has been developed for the trial including an online portal for patient consent and questionnaires, and a clinician education programme to train healthcare providers in the use of integrated risk assessment. Long-term follow-up will evaluate differences in the assessed risk and management advice, patient risk management intentions and adherence, patient-reported experience and outcomes, and the health service implications of personalised risk assessment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and at all participating centres. Study findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and directly to participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621000009819.

Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for pediatric diagnostic testing

PURPOSE

Measuring the effects of genomic sequencing (GS) on patients and families is critical for translational research. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess parents' perceived utility of pediatric diagnostic GS.

METHODS

Informed by a 5-domain conceptual model, the study comprised 5 steps: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Parents of pediatric patients who had received results of clinically indicated GS participated in structured cognitive interviews and 2 rounds of surveys. After eliminating items based on theory and quantitative performance, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments.

RESULTS

We derived the 21-item Pediatric Diagnostic version of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale, which has a 2-factor structure that includes an Informational Utility subscale (16 items, α = 0.91) and an Emotional Utility subscale (5 items, α = 0.71). Scores can be summed to calculate a Total scale score (α = 0.87). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS, and the Emotional Utility subscale was moderately associated with psychosocial impact and depression and anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The pediatric diagnostic GENE-U scale demonstrated good psychometric performance in this initial evaluation and could be a useful tool for translational genomics researchers, warranting additional validation.

All of Us participant perspectives on the return of value in research

PURPOSE

To understand participant preferences for receiving specific types of research information, whether information preferences vary across sociodemographic groups, and the types of health providers participants could access to understand returned information.

METHODS

All of Us Research Program participants completed a value of returning research information survey. Stratified sampling was implemented to enhance participant diversity and avoid noncoverage. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between the most valuable information types, access to providers, and sociodemographic variables.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 20,405) were diverse in their race/ethnicity (eg, 52% were White, 18% were Hispanic/Latino or Spanish, 3% were Asian, and 20% were Black or African American). Most participants (78.6%) valued information about their risk of serious genetic diseases with available treatment. Primary care physicians, specialists, and genetic counselors were the top providers that participants could access for help understanding returned information. Information preferences and provider access varied across sociodemographic groups. For example, as income levels increased, the odds of placing value on genetic results indicating risk of serious disease with available treatment increased when compared with the lowest income levels (P value < .001).

CONCLUSION

Although genetic information was most valuable to participants, preferences about specific information types varied across sociodemographic groups.

Evaluating parental personal utility of pediatric genetic and genomic testing in a diverse, multilingual population

There is increasing evidence of the clinical utility of genetic and genomic testing (GT); however, factors influencing personal utility of GT, especially in diverse, multilingual populations, remain unclear. We explored these factors in a diverse cohort of parents/guardians (participants) whose children received clinical GT through the NYCKidSeq program. A total of 847 participants completed surveys at baseline, post-results disclosure, and 6 months (6m) post-results. The largest population groups were Hispanic/Latino(a) (48%), White/European American (24%), and Black/African American (16%). Personal utility was assessed using the Personal Utility (PrU) scale, adapted for pediatric populations and included on the surveys. Three PrU subscales were identified using factor analysis: practical, educational, and parental psychological utility. Overall personal utility summary score and the three subscales significantly decreased after receiving results and over time. Hispanic/Latino(a) participants identified greater overall personal utility than European American and African American participants at all time points (p < 0.001) as did participants whose children received positive/likely positive results compared with those with negative and uncertain results (post-results: p < 0.001 and p < 0.001; 6m post-results: p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Post-results, higher subscale scores were associated with lower education levels (practical, parental psychological: p ≤ 0.02) and higher levels of trust in the healthcare system (practical, parental psychological: p ≤ 0.04). These findings help to understand the perspectives of diverse parents/guardians, which is critical to tailoring pre- and post-test counseling across a variety of populations and clinical settings.

Measuring health-related quality of life in children with suspected genetic conditions: validation of the PedsQL proxy-report versions

PURPOSE

Measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of children with suspected genetic conditions is important for understanding the effect of interventions such as genomic sequencing (GS). The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) is a widely used generic measure of HRQoL in pediatric patients, but its psychometric properties have not yet been evaluated in children undergoing diagnostic GS.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed caregivers at the time of their child's enrollment into GS research studies as part of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence Generating Research (CSER) consortium. To evaluate structural validity of the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales and PedsQL Infant Scales parent proxy-report versions, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis of the hypothesized factor structure. To evaluate convergent validity, we examined correlations between caregivers' reports of their child's health, assessed using the EQ VAS, and PedsQL scores by child age. We conducted linear regression analyses to examine whether age moderated the association between caregiver-reported child health and PedsQL scores. We assessed reliability using Cronbach's alpha.

RESULTS

We analyzed data for 766 patients across all PedsQL age group versions (1-12 months through 13-18 years). Model fit failed to meet criteria for good fit, even after modification. Neither age group (categorical) nor age (continuous) significantly moderated associations between PedsQL scores and caregiver-reported child health. Cronbach's alphas indicated satisfactory internal consistency for most PedsQL scales.

CONCLUSION

The PedsQL Generic Core Scales and Infant Scales may be appropriate to measure HRQoL in pediatric patients with suspected genetic conditions across a wide age range. While we found evidence of acceptable internal consistency and preliminary convergent validity in this sample, there were some potential problems with structural validity and reliability that require further attention.

Determining priority indicators of utility for genomic testing in rare disease: A Delphi study

PURPOSE

Determining the value of genomic tests in rare disease necessitates a broader conceptualization of genomic utility beyond diagnostic yield. Despite widespread discussion, consensus toward which aspects of value to consider is lacking. This study aimed to use expert opinion to identify and refine priority indicators of utility in rare disease genomic testing.

METHODS

We used 2 survey rounds following Delphi methodology to obtain consensus on indicators of utility among experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia. We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data to identify, define, and determine priority indicators.

RESULTS

Twenty-five experts completed round 1 and 18 completed both rounds. Twenty indicators reached consensus as a priority in value assessment, including those relating to prognostic information, timeliness of results, practical and health care outcomes, clinical accreditation, and diagnostic yield. Whereas indicators pertaining to discovery research, disutility, and factors secondary to primary reason for testing were considered less of a priority and were removed.

CONCLUSION

This study obtained expert consensus on different utility indicators that are considered a priority in determining the value of genomic testing in rare disease in Australia. Indicators may inform a standardized approach to evidence generation and assessment to guide future research, decision making, and implementation efforts.

Ethical and Legal Issues Surrounding Genetic Testing in the NICU

Clinicians practicing in a modern NICU are noticing an increase in the proportion of patients who undergo genetic testing as well as changes in the types of genetic testing patients receive. These trends are not surprising given the increasing recognition of the genetic causes of neonatal illness and recent advances in genetic technology. Yet, the expansion of genetic testing in the NICU also raises a number of ethical questions. In this article, we will review the ethical issues raised by genetic testing, with a focus on the practical implications for neonatologists. First, we outline the complexities of measuring benefit, or utility, for neonatal genetic testing. Next, we discuss potential harms such as inequity, unexpected findings, disability biases, and legal risks. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of ethical issues related to consent for genetic testing. Throughout this article, we highlight solutions to challenges toward the ultimate goal of minimizing harms and maximizing the substantial potential benefits of genetic medicine in the NICU.

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.

Genomic newborn screening for rare diseases

Rare diseases are a leading cause of infant mortality and lifelong disability. To improve outcomes, timely diagnosis and effective treatments are needed. Genomic sequencing has transformed the traditional diagnostic process, providing rapid, accurate and cost-effective genetic diagnoses to many. Incorporating genomic sequencing into newborn screening programmes at the population scale holds the promise of substantially expanding the early detection of treatable rare diseases, with stored genomic data potentially benefitting health over a lifetime and supporting further research. As several large-scale newborn genomic screening projects launch internationally, we review the challenges and opportunities presented, particularly the need to generate evidence of benefit and to address the ethical, legal and psychosocial issues that genomic newborn screening raises.

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.

An Environmental Scan of Consumer-Initiated Germline Genetic Testing for Health Risks

As patient access to laboratory testing outside the clinic grows, health care providers can expect to confront increasing questions about the utility and interpretation of consumer-initiated genetic testing for health risks. We sought to characterize the marketplace diversity of consumer-initiated germline genetic testing options. An environmental scan was conducted to identify germline genetic testing companies that offer testing for at least one diagnosable health condition and are available for purchase by consumers in the US market without a visit to one's health care provider. We limited our scope to tests available between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021. We characterized variability in the content and processes used by 21 companies offering 74 distinct test products that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. A minority (8 of 21 companies) offered tests that assessed the presence of at least 1 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 condition for which detection can impact an individual's clinical care and for which evidence-based guidelines for detection and management exist.

Parents' Perspectives on the Utility of Genomic Sequencing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

It is critical to understand the wide-ranging clinical and non-clinical effects of genome sequencing (GS) for parents in the NICU context. We assessed parents' experiences with GS as a first-line diagnostic tool for infants with suspected genetic conditions in the NICU.

METHODS

Parents of newborns (N = 62) suspected of having a genetic condition were recruited across five hospitals in the southeast United States as part of the SouthSeq study. Semi-structured interviews (N = 78) were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive, negative, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews.

RESULTS

Key themes included that (1) GS in infancy is important for reproductive decision making, preparing for the child's future care, ending the diagnostic odyssey, and sharing results with care providers; (2) the timing of disclosure was acceptable for most parents, although many reported the NICU environment was overwhelming; and (3) parents deny that receiving GS results during infancy exacerbated parent-infant bonding, and reported variable impact on their feelings of guilt.

CONCLUSION

Parents reported that GS during the neonatal period was useful because it provided a "backbone" for their child's care. Parents did not consistently endorse negative impacts like interference with parent-infant bonding.