Return of results in a global survey of psychiatric genetics researchers: practices, attitudes, and knowledge

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer

Open science ensures that research is transparently reported and freely accessible for all to assess and collaboratively build on. Psychiatric genetics has led among the health sciences in implementing some open science practices in common study designs, such as replication as part of genome-wide association studies. However, thorough open science implementation guidelines are limited and largely not specific to data, privacy, and research conduct challenges in psychiatric genetics. Here, we present a primer of open science practices, including selection of a research topic with patients/nonacademic collaborators, equitable authorship and citation practices, design of replicable, reproducible studies, preregistrations, open data, and privacy issues. We provide tips for informative figures and inclusive, precise reporting. We discuss considerations in working with nonacademic collaborators and distributing research through preprints, blogs, social media, and accessible lecture materials. Finally, we provide extra resources to support every step of the research process.

Assessment of the Needs of Nephrology Divisions to Implement Return of Clinically Significant Research Genetic Results: A Survey of Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) Investigators

Introduction

There is an increasing need to return genetic testing results to patients with kidney disease who were first genotyped on a research basis. Operationalizing this process in nephrology clinics is challenged by a limited number of genetic providers with whom to partner and a general lack of support services for all clinicians.

Methods

We administered a survey in March 2022 to assess the current ability and ongoing needs of nephrology divisions to return clinically significant research genetic results to patients and to implement clinical genetic testing. This survey was distributed to institutions within the Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) as part of the planning process for return of research genetic results to participants with pathogenic variants in Mendelian nephrotic syndrome genes.

Results

Twenty-seven of 28 sites (96%) completed the survey. 59% (n = 16) of sites said they could handle return of research genetic results independently, with the rest expressing hesitation about the volume and complexity of patients and the limited resources and access to genetics services. 81% (n = 22) of these institutions did have a genetics clinic and 26% (n = 7) have a nephrology genetics clinic. However, 70% (n = 10) of these clinics have a waiting time over 1 month. 89% of divisions (n = 24) were conducting genetic testing and 96% of those (n = 23) used a kidney multi-gene panel. In 46% of divisions (n = 11), nephrologists were handling logistics of obtaining genetic testing samples themselves.

Conclusion

We identified specific areas of support needed for return of clinically significant genetic results from research studies. While the surveyed nephrologists were conducting genetic testing, there were limitations in the support services available. This survey will help guide other research studies that wish to return genetic results to participants and also highlight the need for increasing support to effectively operationalize genetic testing in nephrology clinics.

Psychiatric polygenic risk scores: Child and adolescent psychiatrists' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences

Psychiatric polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential utility in psychiatric care and prevention, but there are concerns about their implementation. We surveyed 960 US-based practicing child and adolescent psychiatrists' (CAP) about their experiences, perspectives, and potential uses of psychiatric PRS. While 23% of CAP reported that they had never heard of PRS, 10 % of respondents have had a patient/family bring PRS to them and 4% have generated PRS for patients. Though 25% stated they would request PRS if a patient/caregiver asked, 35% indicated that nothing would prompt them to request PRS. Most respondents (54%) believed psychiatric PRS are currently at least slightly useful and 87% believed they will be so in 5 years. More than 70% indicated they would take action in response to a child with a top fifth percentile psychiatric PRS but no diagnosis: 48% would increase monitoring of symptoms, 42% would evaluate for current symptoms, and 4% would prescribe medications. Yet, most respondents were concerned that high-PRS results could lead to overtreatment and negatively impact patients' emotional well-being. Findings indicate emerging use of psychiatric PRS within child and adolescent psychiatry in the US. It is critical to examine the ethical and clinical challenges that PRS may generate and begin efforts to promote their informed and responsible use.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.