Serious Games for Improving Genetic Literacy and Genetic Risk Awareness in the General Public: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Effectiveness of Serious Games in Improving Genetic Literacy and Genetic Risk Awareness in the General Public: A Pilot Study

Background: Genomics is an integral part of medical science; however, European citizens' literacy on basic genetic concepts is still poor. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Serious Games (SGs) in increasing genetic literacy in laypeople and to assess the impact of SGs on participants' perceived self-efficacy (SE) in managing genetic risk implications. Materials and Methods: Two minigames and an adventure game were created, together with leaflets reporting the same information as the SGs. Sixty participants enrolled at baseline and completed a brief sociodemographic questionnaire and an ad hoc questionnaire assessing their genetic knowledge. They were assigned to the SGs group (30 subjects) or to the Leaflets group (30 subjects) by matching age and sex. Both groups had about 40 minutes to play the SGs or to read the leaflets. In the postlearning session, participants completed the same genetic knowledge questionnaires administered at baseline and five items from the Self-Efficacy Scale, whereas the SGs group also filled in the In-Game Experience Questionnaire. Results and Conclusion: Results showed that learning genetic concepts through SGs was comparable to learning through leaflets. Playing SGs was also associated with poor feelings of frustration or annoyance, good engagement in the game challenges and contents, and positive feelings, particularly in subjects under 30 years. Participants perceiving SE increased significantly in both Leaflets and SGs groups, but the effect was higher for SGs players. SGs have the potential to increase genetic literacy in the public by making the learning process more engaging, pleasant and by enhancing SE.

Decision-making process about prenatal genetic screening: how deeply do moms-to-be want to know from Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing?

BACKGROUND

Prenatal information may be obtained through invasive diagnostic procedures and non-invasive screening procedures. Several psychological factors are involved in the decision to undergo a non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) but little is known about the decision-making strategies involved in choosing a specific level of in-depth NIPT, considering the increased availability and complexity of NIPT options. The main aim of this work is to assess the impact of psychological factors (anxiety about pregnancy, perception of risk in pregnancy, intolerance to uncertainty), and COVID-19 pandemic on the type of NIPT chosen, in terms of the number of conditions that are tested.

METHODS

A self-administered survey evaluated the decision-making process about NIPT. The final sample comprised 191 women (M_age = 35.53; SD = 4.79) who underwent a NIPT from one private Italian genetic company. Based on the test date, the sample of women was divided between "NIPT before COVID-19" and "NIPT during COVID-19".

RESULTS

Almost all of the participants reported being aware of the existence of different types of NIPT and more than half reported having been informed by their gynecologist. Results showed no significant association between the period in which women underwent NIPT (before COVID-19 or during COVID-19) and the preferences for more expanded screening panel. Furthermore, regarding psychological variables, results showed a significant difference between perceived risk for the fetus based on the NIPT type groups, revealing that pregnant women who underwent the more expanded panel had a significantly higher level of perceived risk for the fetus than that reported by pregnant women who underwent the basic one. There was no statistically significant difference between the other psychological variables and NIPT type.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate the paramount role of gynecologist and other health care providers, such as geneticists and psychologists, is to support decision-making process in NIPT, in order to overcome people's deficits in genetic knowledge, promote awareness about their preferences, and control anxiety related to the unborn child. Decision-support strategies are critical during the onset of prenatal care, according to the advances in prenatal genomics and to parent's needs.

Conceptual Ambiguity Surrounding Gamification and Serious Games in Health Care: Literature Review and Development of Game-Based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING)

BACKGROUND

In health care, the use of game-based interventions to increase motivation, engagement, and overall sustainability of health behaviors is steadily becoming more common. The most prevalent types of game-based interventions in health care research are gamification and serious games. Various researchers have discussed substantial conceptual differences between these 2 concepts, supported by empirical studies showing differences in the effects on specific health behaviors. However, researchers also frequently report cases in which terms related to these 2 concepts are used ambiguously or even interchangeably. It remains unclear to what extent existing health care research explicitly distinguishes between gamification and serious games and whether it draws on existing conceptual considerations to do so.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to address this lack of knowledge by capturing the current state of conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in health care research. Furthermore, we aim to provide tools for researchers to disambiguate the reporting of game-based interventions.

METHODS

We used a 2-step research approach. First, we conducted a systematic literature review of 206 studies, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and its sister journals, containing terms related to gamification, serious games, or both. We analyzed their conceptualizations of gamification and serious games, as well as the distinctions between the two concepts. Second, based on the literature review findings, we developed a set of guidelines for researchers reporting on game-based interventions and evaluated them with a group of 9 experts from the field.

RESULTS

Our results show that less than half of the concept mentions are accompanied by an explicit definition. To distinguish between the 2 concepts, we identified four common approaches: implicit distinction, synonymous use of terms, serious games as a type of gamified system, and distinction based on the full game dimension. Our Game-Based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING) consist of 25 items grouped into four topics: conceptual focus, contribution, mindfulness about related concepts, and individual concept definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in health care literature are strongly heterogeneous, leading to conceptual ambiguity. Following the GAMING can support authors in rigorous reporting on study results of game-based interventions.

Perception of personalized medicine, pharmacogenomics, and genetic testing among undergraduates in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

The global development and advancement of genomic medicine in the recent decade has accelerated the implementation of personalized medicine (PM) and pharmacogenomics (PGx) into clinical practice, while catalyzing the emergence of genetic testing (GT) with relevant ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI).

RESULTS

The perception of university undergraduates with regards to PM and PGx was investigated, and 80% of undergraduates valued PM as a promising healthcare model with 66% indicating awareness of personal genome testing companies. When asked about the curriculum design towards PM and PGx, compared to undergraduates in non-medically related curriculum, those studying in medically related curriculum had an adjusted 7.2 odds of perceiving that their curriculum was well-designed for learning PGx (95% CI 3.6-14.6) and a 3.7 odds of perceiving that PGx was important in their study (95% CI 2.0-6.8). Despite this, only 16% of medically related curriculum undergraduates would consider embarking on future education on PM. When asked about their perceptions on GT, 60% rated their genetic knowledge as "School Biology" level or below while 76% would consider undergoing a genetic test. As for ELSI, 75% of undergraduates perceived that they were aware of ethical issues of GT in general, particularly on "Patient Privacy" (80%) and "Data Confidentiality" (68%). Undergraduates were also asked about their perceived reaction upon receiving an unfavorable result from GT, and over half of the participants perceived that they would feel "helpless or pessimistic" (56%), "inadequate or different" (59%), and "disadvantaged at job seeking" (59%), while older undergraduates had an adjusted 2.0 odds of holding the latter opinion (95% CI 1.1-3.5), compared to younger undergraduates.

CONCLUSION

Hong Kong undergraduates showed a high awareness of PM but insufficient genetic knowledge and low interest in pursuing a career towards PM. They were generally aware of ethical issues of GT and especially concerned about patient privacy and data confidentiality. There was a predominance of pessimistic views towards unfavorable testing results. This study calls for the attention to evaluate education and talent development on genomics, and update existing legal frameworks on genetic testing in Hong Kong.

Opportunities and Challenges of Web-Based and Remotely Administered Surveys for Patient Preference Studies in a Vulnerable Population

The application of web-based and remotely administered surveys is becoming increasingly popular due to the fact that it offers numerous advantages over traditional paper-based or computer-based surveys completed in the presence of the researcher. However, it is unclear whether complex preference elicitation tasks administered online in highly vulnerable patient populations are also feasible. This commentary discusses opportunities and challenges of conducting quantitative patient preference studies in lung cancer patients using web-based modes of data collection. We refer to our recent experience in the context of the Patient Preference in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle (PREFER) project. Among the main advantages were the possibility of reaching a wider and geographically distant population in a shorter timeframe while reducing the financial costs of testing, the greater flexibility offered and the reduced burden on the patients. Some limitations were also identified and should be the object of further research, including the potential lack of inclusiveness of the research, the lack of control over who is completing the survey, a poor comprehension of the study material, and ultimately a lower level of engagement with the study. Despite these limitations, experience from the PREFER project suggests that online quantitative methods for data collection may provide a valuable method to explore preferences in vulnerable patient populations beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Engaging Patients in Precision Oncology: Development and Usability of a Web-Based Patient-Facing Genomic Sequencing Report

PURPOSE

Evidence-based somatic and germline sequencing has transformed cancer care and improves patient outcomes. However, patients' low genetic literacy and misunderstanding of their own genomic results poses a threat to the realization of precision oncology. To optimize patient genomic comprehension, we developed a Web-based, patient-directed, genomic sequencing education and return-of-results tool, HOPE-Genomics.

METHODS

The HOPE-Genomics prototype included somatic and germline sequencing results, embedded multimedia genomic education, and interactive features (eg, request for genetic counseling). Between January and April 2018, we elicited feedback on tool usability and comprehensiveness through participant surveys, 4 focus groups of patients with cancer and their family members, and 3 provider focus groups (comprising 8 patients, 5 family members, and 19 providers).

RESULTS

We identified themes in patient/family tool-related responses, including the desire to view a patient-friendly report, a desire to receive multiple types of genomic information (eg, prognostic and uncertain), high acceptability of report content, and interest in tool-enabled access to genetic counseling. Major themes from the clinician focus groups included believing the tool could help patients formulate questions and facilitate patients' communication of results to family members. However, there were diverse responses from all participants in terms of tool implementation (ie, timing and nature of report release). Some participants preferred report release before meeting with the provider, and others preferred it during the appointment. Additionally, some clinicians were concerned about providing prognostic and treatment information through the tool.

CONCLUSION

There was high acceptability and interest from patients, family members, and providers in a patient-directed genomics report. Future work will determine whether direct-to-patient reporting of genomic results improves patient knowledge, care engagement, and compliance with genomically guided interventions.