A behavior-theoretic evaluation of values clarification on parental beliefs and intentions toward genomic sequencing for newborns

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Australian Public Perspectives on Genomic Newborn Screening: Risks, Benefits, and Preferences for Implementation

Recent dramatic reductions in the timeframe in which genomic sequencing can deliver results means its application in time-sensitive screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is becoming a reality. As genomic NBS (gNBS) programs are developed around the world, there is an increasing need to address the ethical and social issues that such initiatives raise. This study therefore aimed to explore the Australian public's perspectives and values regarding key gNBS characteristics and preferences for service delivery. We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age via social media; 75 people aged 23-72 participated in 1 of 15 focus groups. Participants were generally supportive of introducing genomic sequencing into newborn screening, with several stating that the adoption of such revolutionary and beneficial technology was a moral obligation. Participants consistently highlighted receiving an early diagnosis as the leading benefit, which was frequently linked to the potential for early treatment and intervention, or access to other forms of assistance, such as peer support. Informing parents about the test during pregnancy was considered important. This study provides insights into the Australian public's views and preferences to inform the delivery of a gNBS program in the Australian context.

Parental Guidance Suggested: Engaging Parents as Partners in Research Studies of Genomic Screening for a Pediatric Population

Recent advances in genomic sequencing and genomic medicine are reshaping the landscape of clinical care. As a screening modality, genetic sequencing has the potential to dramatically expand the clinical utility of newborn screening (NBS), though significant barriers remain regarding ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) and technical and evidentiary challenges. Stakeholder-informed implementation research is poised to grapple with many of these barriers, and parents are crucial stakeholders in this process. We describe the formation and activities of a Community Research Board (CRB) composed of parents with diverse backgrounds assembled to participate in an ongoing research partnership with genomic and public health researchers at the University of North Carolina. The mission of the CRB is to provide insight into parental perspectives regarding the prospect of adding genomic sequencing to NBS and collaboratively develop strategies to ensure its equitable uptake. We describe how these contributions can improve the accessibility of research and recruitment methods and promote trust and inclusivity within diverse communities to maximize the societal benefit of population genomic screening in healthy children.

Decision-making about genetic health information among family dyads: a systematic literature review

Decisions involving two individuals (i.e., dyadic decision-making) have been increasingly studied in healthcare research. There is evidence of bi-directional influences in decision-making processes among spousal, provider-patient and parent-child dyads. Genetic information can directly impact biologically related individuals. Thus, it is important to understand dyadic decision-making about genetic health information among family members. This systematic literature review aimed to identify literature examining decision-making among family dyads. Peer-reviewed publications were included if they reported quantitative empirical research on dyadic decision-making about genetic information, published between January 1998 and August 2020 and written in English. The search was conducted in 6 databases and returned 3167 articles, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were in the context of cancer genetic testing (n = 8) or reproductive testing or screening (n = 5). Studies reported two broad categories of decisions with dyadic influence: undergoing screening or testing (n = 10) and sharing information with family (n = 5). Factors were correlated between dyads such as attitudes, knowledge, behaviors and psychological wellbeing. Emerging evidence shows that dyad members influence each other when making decisions about receiving or sharing genetic information. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering both members of a dyad in intervention design and clinical interactions.

Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.

Purpose

To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.

Study Selection

We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.

Data Synthesis

Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ² = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ² = 6.08, P = 0.05).

Limitations

Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Principles of Genomic Newborn Screening Programs: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Genomic newborn screening (gNBS) may optimize the health and well-being of children and families. Screening programs are required to be evidence based, acceptable, and beneficial.

OBJECTIVES

To identify what has been discovered following the reporting of the first gNBS pilot projects and to provide a summary of key points for the design of gNBS.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic literature review was performed on April 14, 2021, identifying 36 articles that addressed the following questions: (1) what is the interest in and what would be the uptake of gNBS? (2) what diseases and genes should be included? (3) what is the validity and utility of gNBS? and (4) what are the ethical, legal, and social implications? Articles were only included if they generated new evidence; all opinion pieces were excluded.

FINDINGS

In the 36 articles included, there was high concordance, except for gene disease inclusion, which was highly variable. Key findings were the need for equitable access, appropriate educational materials, and informed and flexible consent. The process for selecting genes for testing should be transparent and reflect that parents value the certainty of prediction over actionability. Data should be analyzed in a way that minimizes uncertainty and incidental findings. The expansion of traditional newborn screening (tNBS) to identify more life-threatening and treatable diseases needs to be balanced against the complexity of consenting parents of newborns for genomic testing as well as the risk that overall uptake of tNBS may decline. The literature reflected that the right of a child to self-determination should be valued more than the possibility of the whole family benefiting from a newborn genomic test.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this systematic review suggest that implementing gNBS will require a nuanced approach. There are gaps in our knowledge, such as the views of diverse populations, the capabilities of health systems, and health economic implications. It will be essential to rigorously evaluate outcomes and ensure programs can evolve to maximize benefit.

Ethical implications of next-generation sequencing and the future of newborn screening

ABSTRACT

Over the last 50 years, routine newborn blood screening for congenital disorders has been hailed as a miracle of modern science, saving countless lives by providing a means to detect and treat life-threatening disorders before symptoms present. Despite progress made with more than 5,000 babies effectively identified with rare conditions each year, congenital anomalies collectively remain at the top of the list as the cause of death for babies under 1 year of age, accounting for more than 20% of all infant mortalities. Rapid technological advances have seen the original singular newborn screen for phenylketonuria expand to a core set of 34 conditions and an additional 26 secondary conditions on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel, with wide state-to-state variation for implementation. As genomic analysis evolves to enable next-generation sequencing, debates continue over the ethical, legal, and social implications of identifying conditions for which there is no effective treatment. Nurse practitioners should be engaged and informed in providing evidence-based support to families engaging in ethical complex decision making surrounding newborn screening while effectively balancing risk-benefit analysis with individual beliefs and values.

Social and behavioral science at the forefront of genomics: Discovery, translation, and health equity

This special issue highlights the unique role that social and behavioral science has to play at the forefront of genomics. Through the introduction of papers comprising this special issue, we outline priority research areas at the nexus of genomics and the social and behavioral sciences. These include: Discovery science; clinical and community translation, and equity, including engagement and inclusion of diverse populations in genomic science. We advocate for genomic discovery that considers social context, neural, cognitive, and behavioral endophenotypes, and that is grounded in social and behavioral science research and theory. Further, the social and behavioral sciences should play a leadership role in identifying best practices for effective clinical and community translation of genomic discoveries. Finally, inclusive research that engages diverse populations is necessary for genomic discovery and translation to benefit all. We also highlight ways that genomics can be a fruitful testbed for the development and refinement of social and behavioral science theory. Indeed, an expanded ecological lens that runs from genomes to society will be required to fully understand human behavior.

The impact of the number of tests presented and a provider recommendation on decisions about genetic testing for cancer risk

OBJECTIVE

To determine how the method of presenting testing options and a provider recommendation can influence a decision about genetic testing for inherited cancer predispositions.

METHODS

An online hypothetical vignette study was completed by 454 healthy volunteers. Participants were randomized to receive one of two survey versions which differed by genetic testing choice presentation. One group was shown three options simultaneously (no test, 5-gene or 15-gene), and a second group received the 15-gene option after choosing between the no test and 5-gene options. A preference-based provider recommendation was also incorporated. We examined the effect of these interventions on test selection.

RESULTS

Participants in the simultaneous group were more likely to choose a genetic test than those in the sequential group (OR: 2.35, p=0.003). This effect was no longer observed when individuals who had selected no-test in the sequential group were told about the 15-gene test (OR: 1.03 p=0.932). Incorporating a provider recommendation into the hypothetical scenario led to more preference-consistent choices (χ2 = 8.53, p < 0.0035,).

CONCLUSIONS

A larger menu of testing choices led to higher testing uptake. A preference-based clinician recommendation resulted in more preference-consistent choices.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The structuring of testing options and preference-sensitive recommendations appear to facilitate informed testing decisions.

Genomic Sequencing for Newborn Screening: Results of the NC NEXUS Project

Newborn screening (NBS) was established as a public health program in the 1960s and is crucial for facilitating detection of certain medical conditions in which early intervention can prevent serious, life-threatening health problems. Genomic sequencing can potentially expand the screening for rare hereditary disorders, but many questions surround its possible use for this purpose. We examined the use of exome sequencing (ES) for NBS in the North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening (NC NEXUS) project, comparing the yield from ES used in a screening versus a diagnostic context. We enrolled healthy newborns and children with metabolic diseases or hearing loss (106 participants total). ES confirmed the participant's underlying diagnosis in 15 out of 17 (88%) children with metabolic disorders and in 5 out of 28 (∼18%) children with hearing loss. We discovered actionable findings in four participants that would not have been detected by standard NBS. A subset of parents was eligible to receive additional information for their child about childhood-onset conditions with low or no clinical actionability, clinically actionable adult-onset conditions, and carrier status for autosomal-recessive conditions. We found pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer in two children, a likely pathogenic variant in the gene associated with Lowe syndrome in one child, and an average of 1.8 reportable variants per child for carrier results. These results highlight the benefits and limitations of using genomic sequencing for NBS and the challenges of using such technology in future precision medicine approaches.

Values clarification and parental decision making about newborn genomic sequencing

OBJECTIVE

Using an online decision aid developed to support parental decision making about newborn genomic sequencing, we tested whether adding a values clarification exercise to educational content would improve decision making outcomes and influence intention to pursue genomic sequencing. We also examined whether the effect of values clarification varied depending on one's health literacy level.

METHOD

In an online experiment, women and men aged 18 to 44 who were either pregnant or had a pregnant partner, were currently trying to get pregnant, or were preparing for a pregnancy within the next 2 years were randomly assigned to complete either a decision aid with educational information about newborn genomic sequencing or a decision aid with the same educational information and a values clarification exercise.

RESULTS

Of the 1,000 participants who completed the decision aid, those who completed the values clarification exercise reported less decision regret, F(1, 995) = 6.19, p = .01, and were clearer about their personal values, F(1, 995) = 6.39, p = .01. Moderation analyses revealed that the benefit of values clarification on decisional conflict was particularly evident among participants with lower health literacy, B = -3.94, SE = 1.67, t = -2.36, p = .018. There was not a significant moderation effect of health literacy and decision aid condition on decision regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a values clarification exercise to decision aids for parents making decisions about genomic sequencing may improve the decision-making experience and provide some benefit to individuals with lower health literacy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).