A randomized controlled study of a consent intervention for participating in an NIH genome sequencing study

ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial

PURPOSE

Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design.

RESULTS

Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings.

CONCLUSION

The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.

Enrolling Children in Clinical Trials for Genetic Neurodevelopmental Conditions: Ethics, Parental Decisions, and Children's Identities

Knowledge of genetic mechanisms contributing to neurodevelopmental conditions is advancing. This is informing development of new drugs to treat or ameliorate these conditions, through targeting underlying genetic pathways. Drugs are tested in clinical trials, necessitating parents to engage with decisions about whether to enroll their child. In this article, we consider important ethical issues to anticipate as clinical research opportunities in genetic neurodevelopmental conditions arise. For example, genetic pathways targeted by the drugs may interact with valued character and personality traits. It is essential that recruitment and consent processes are optimized for families who will grapple with whether these novel drug treatments interact with their child's personality and authentic identity. We call for focused social science research and further normative analysis so that parents are better supported to make informed choices. Additionally, clinical research regulators should have a sound understanding of the contextual experiences regarding how this population of parents engages with decisions.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

The role of digital tools in the delivery of genomic medicine: enhancing patient-centered care

PURPOSE

Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling.

METHODS

We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis.

RESULTS

In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.

Old Challenges or New Issues? Genetic Health Professionals' Experiences Obtaining Informed Consent in Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing

Background

While integrating genomic sequencing into clinical care carries clear medical benefits, it also raises difficult ethical questions. Compared to traditional sequencing technologies, genomic sequencing and analysis is more likely to identify unsolicited findings (UF) and variants that cannot be classified as benign or disease-causing (variants of uncertain significance; VUS). UF and VUS pose new challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) who are obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing from patients.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 GHPs across Europe, Australia and Canada to identify some of these challenges.

Results

Our results show that GHPs find it difficult to prepare patients to receive results because a vast amount of information is required to fully inform patients about VUS and UF. GHPs also struggle to engage patients – many of whom may be focused on ending their ‘diagnostic odyssey’ – in the informed consent process in a meaningful way. Thus, some questioned how ‘informed’ patients actually are when they agree to undergo clinical genomic sequencing.

Conclusions

These findings suggest a tension remains between sufficient information provision at the risk of overwhelming the patient and imparting less information at the risk of uninformed decision-making. We suggest that a shift away from ‘fully informed consent’ toward an approach aimed at realizing, as far as possible, the underlying goals that informed consent is meant to promote.

Informed Consent in the Genomics Era

Informed consent, the process of gathering autonomous authorization for a medical intervention or medical research participation, is a fundamental component of medical practice. Medical informed consent assumes decision-making capacity, voluntariness, comprehension, and adequate information. The increasing use of genetic testing, particularly genomic sequencing, in clinical and research settings has presented many new challenges for clinicians and researchers when obtaining informed consent. Many of these challenges revolve around the need for patient comprehension of sufficient information. Genomic sequencing is complex-all of the possible results are too numerous to explain, and many of the risks and benefits remain unknown. Thus, historical standards of consent are difficult to apply. Alternative models of consent have been proposed to increase patient understanding, and several have empirically demonstrated effectiveness. However, there is still a striking lack of consensus in the genetics community about what constitutes informed consent in the context of genomic sequencing. Multiple approaches are needed to address this challenge, including consensus building around standards, targeted use of genetic counselors in nongenetics clinics in which genomic testing is ordered, and the development and testing of alternative models for obtaining informed consent.

Shortened consent forms for genome-wide sequencing: Parent and provider perspectives

BACKGROUND

Consent forms for exome and/or genome sequencing, collectively called genome-wide sequencing (GWS), frequently contain detailed information on complex topics such as sequencing analysis and incidental findings. Considering recent endeavors by the health care community to simplify GWS consent forms, it is important to gain stakeholders' perspectives on the content, length, and use of consent forms.

METHODS

Thematic analysis was conducted on data obtained from focus groups with two participant cohorts: parents who previously provided consent for trio-based GWS as part of the translational pediatric GWS CAUSES Study, and genetic health care providers (HCP) who provide pre-test counseling for GWS.

RESULTS

Genetic HCP indicated that consent forms cannot replace pre-test counseling, and as such, a simplified consent form focusing on the implications of GWS would be beneficial to both patients and HCP. Although parents' primary concerns varied when considering GWS, they all highly valued information. Parents also indicated the need for community and support after the return of GWS results. Both participant cohorts recommended that consent forms be available online and include an appendix for supplementary information.

CONCLUSION

It is important to include both parents and HCP in the design of GWS consent forms, and also, to help connect families who have a shared diagnosis after the post-test counseling session.

Challenges to informed consent for exome sequencing: A best-worst scaling experiment

As exome sequencing expands as a diagnostic tool, patients and providers have voiced concerns about communicating the breadth and scope of potential results when obtaining informed consent. This study aimed to understand how genetic counselors prioritize essential components of the informed consent process and whether counselor factors influence these decisions. Development of a best-worst scaling experiment was informed by a systematic literature review and two focus groups. In all, 11 choice sets were created using a balanced incomplete block design, where participants selected the most and least important object in each set. Mean best-worst (BW) scores were calculated to summarize the relative importance of each object, and mediation analyses assessed whether responses were associated with genetic counselor factors and attitudes. In all, 342 members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors completed the online survey. Ranking of BW scores suggests that participants prioritize collaborative decision-making, assessing understanding and managing expectations, with the least emphasis placed on discussing technological complexities. Stratified analyses found that counselors more experienced with obtaining informed consent for exome sequencing and those reporting higher perceptions of patients' ability to manage information rated discussing variants of uncertain significance as significantly more important (p < .05). Our results suggest that genetic counselors report intentions to prioritize individual patient needs when obtaining informed consent for exome sequencing. Professional characteristics and attitudes may influence preemptive discussion of uncertain results.