Factors Influencing Genetic Screening Enrollment among a Diverse, Community-Ascertained Cohort.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Public Health Genomics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-21 DOI:10.1159/000531989
Nandana D Rao, Jailanie Kaganovsky, Stephanie M Fullerton, Annie T Chen, Brian H Shirts
{"title":"Factors Influencing Genetic Screening Enrollment among a Diverse, Community-Ascertained Cohort.","authors":"Nandana D Rao, Jailanie Kaganovsky, Stephanie M Fullerton, Annie T Chen, Brian H Shirts","doi":"10.1159/000531989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions has been proposed as a mechanism to reduce health disparities. Analysis of how race and ethnicity influence decision-making to receive screening can inform recruitment efforts and more equitable population screening design. A study at the University of Washington Medicine that invited unselected patients to participate in genetic screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes provided an opportunity to evaluate these factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed screening enrollee survey data to understand factors most important and least important in decision-making about screening overall and across different race and ethnicity groups. Electronic health record race and ethnicity and survey-reported race and ethnicity were compared to assist with interpretation. Comments provided about reasons for not enrolling in screening were analyzed using content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, learning about disease risk and identifying risk early for prevention purposes were important factors in decision-making to receive screening, and regrets about screening and screening being against one's moral code were not viewed as important. Although racial identity was challenging to assign in all cases, compared to other enrollees, African-American and Asian enrollees considered test accuracy and knowing more about the test to be of greater importance. Three themes emerged related to nonparticipation: benefits do not outweigh risks, don't want to know, and challenges with study logistics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results highlight important motivators for receiving screening and areas that can be addressed to increase screening interest and accessibility. This knowledge can inform future population screening program design including recruitment and education approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10614558/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000531989","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions has been proposed as a mechanism to reduce health disparities. Analysis of how race and ethnicity influence decision-making to receive screening can inform recruitment efforts and more equitable population screening design. A study at the University of Washington Medicine that invited unselected patients to participate in genetic screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes provided an opportunity to evaluate these factors.

Methods: We analyzed screening enrollee survey data to understand factors most important and least important in decision-making about screening overall and across different race and ethnicity groups. Electronic health record race and ethnicity and survey-reported race and ethnicity were compared to assist with interpretation. Comments provided about reasons for not enrolling in screening were analyzed using content analysis.

Results: Overall, learning about disease risk and identifying risk early for prevention purposes were important factors in decision-making to receive screening, and regrets about screening and screening being against one's moral code were not viewed as important. Although racial identity was challenging to assign in all cases, compared to other enrollees, African-American and Asian enrollees considered test accuracy and knowing more about the test to be of greater importance. Three themes emerged related to nonparticipation: benefits do not outweigh risks, don't want to know, and challenges with study logistics.

Conclusion: Our results highlight important motivators for receiving screening and areas that can be addressed to increase screening interest and accessibility. This knowledge can inform future population screening program design including recruitment and education approaches.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在不同的、社区确定的队列中影响基因筛查登记的因素。
引言:已提出对可预防的成人遗传性疾病进行基因筛查,作为减少健康差距的一种机制。分析种族和民族如何影响接受筛查的决策,可以为招聘工作和更公平的人口筛查设计提供信息。华盛顿大学医学院的一项研究邀请未经选择的患者参与医学重要基因致病性变异的基因筛查,为评估这些因素提供了机会。方法:我们分析了筛查参与者的调查数据,以了解在整个筛查决策中以及不同种族和民族群体中最重要和最不重要的因素。将电子健康记录种族和民族以及调查报告的种族和民族进行比较,以帮助解释。使用内容分析对提供的关于未参加筛选的原因的评论进行分析。结果:总体而言,了解疾病风险和早期识别风险以达到预防目的是决定接受筛查的重要因素,而对筛查和筛查违反道德准则的遗憾并不重要。尽管在所有情况下,种族认同都很难分配,但与其他参与者相比,非裔美国人和亚裔参与者认为测试的准确性和对测试的更多了解更为重要。出现了三个与不参与有关的主题:收益不大于风险,不想知道,以及研究后勤方面的挑战。结论:我们的研究结果突出了接受筛查的重要动机,以及可以提高筛查兴趣和可及性的领域。这些知识可以为未来的人口筛查计划设计提供信息,包括招聘和教育方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Genomics
Public Health Genomics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.
期刊最新文献
"The Biggest Struggle:" Navigating Trust and Uncertainty in Genetic Variant Interpretation. "Should I let them know I have this?": Multifaceted genetic discrimination and limited awareness of legal protections amongst individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes. Who's on your genomics research team? Consumer experiences from Australia. Development and Pilot Testing of Evidence-Based Interventions to Improve Adherence after Receiving a Genetic Result. Co-creating the experience of consent for newborn genome sequencing (The Generation Study).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1