Katharina Tschigg, Luca Consoli, Norbert Brüggemann, Andrew A Hicks, Ciara Staunton, Deborah Mascalzoni, Roberta Biasiotto
{"title":"How to communicate and what to disclose to participants in a recall-by-genotype research approach: a multistep empirical study.","authors":"Katharina Tschigg, Luca Consoli, Norbert Brüggemann, Andrew A Hicks, Ciara Staunton, Deborah Mascalzoni, Roberta Biasiotto","doi":"10.1007/s12687-024-00733-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recall-by-genotype (RbG) is a bottom-up approach using existing genetic data to design follow-up stratified studies. Genetic information may be partially disclosed at invitation, thus raising ethical issues which call for defined best practices for disclosure and communication in RbG approaches. Within the context of the ProtectMove sub-project of the Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, we investigated research participant perspectives on RbG communication strategies (Step 1 and 4, questionnaire with a subsample of CHRIS participants with and without previous experience of RbG, respectively). Additionally, we explored researchers' and study personnel's experience with RbG (Step 2 and 3, focus group discussion). In step 1 (N = 95), participants were generally satisfied with the study process. Most (71.6%) wanted to know their carrier status for personal and collective benefit. Tailored disclosure strategies and transparent, effective, and well-thought-out communication approaches were advocated by study personnel (Step 2, N = 6) and researchers (Step 3, N = 7). Challenges in dealing with uncertainty, concerns caused by RbG invitations, and the possibility of misunderstanding were also raised. In step 4 (N = 369), participants valued being informed of study details at the first invitation stage, and generally felt comfortable towards RbG study invitations (58.5%) and to receiving genetic information after the study (58.5-81.6%). Comfort and perceived impact of disclosure of genetic information varied according to the type of variant being potentially disclosed. This study suggested designing communication strategies, based on clear and understandable explanations, sensitive to participant expectations and preferences, developing case-by-case solutions for disclosure.</p>","PeriodicalId":46965,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Genetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-024-00733-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Recall-by-genotype (RbG) is a bottom-up approach using existing genetic data to design follow-up stratified studies. Genetic information may be partially disclosed at invitation, thus raising ethical issues which call for defined best practices for disclosure and communication in RbG approaches. Within the context of the ProtectMove sub-project of the Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, we investigated research participant perspectives on RbG communication strategies (Step 1 and 4, questionnaire with a subsample of CHRIS participants with and without previous experience of RbG, respectively). Additionally, we explored researchers' and study personnel's experience with RbG (Step 2 and 3, focus group discussion). In step 1 (N = 95), participants were generally satisfied with the study process. Most (71.6%) wanted to know their carrier status for personal and collective benefit. Tailored disclosure strategies and transparent, effective, and well-thought-out communication approaches were advocated by study personnel (Step 2, N = 6) and researchers (Step 3, N = 7). Challenges in dealing with uncertainty, concerns caused by RbG invitations, and the possibility of misunderstanding were also raised. In step 4 (N = 369), participants valued being informed of study details at the first invitation stage, and generally felt comfortable towards RbG study invitations (58.5%) and to receiving genetic information after the study (58.5-81.6%). Comfort and perceived impact of disclosure of genetic information varied according to the type of variant being potentially disclosed. This study suggested designing communication strategies, based on clear and understandable explanations, sensitive to participant expectations and preferences, developing case-by-case solutions for disclosure.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Community Genetics is an international forum for research in the ever-expanding field of community genetics, the art and science of applying medical genetics to human communities for the benefit of their individuals.
Community genetics comprises all activities which identify persons at increased genetic risk and has an interest in assessing this risk, in order to enable those at risk to make informed decisions. Community genetics services thus encompass such activities as genetic screening, registration of genetic conditions in the population, routine preconceptional and prenatal genetic consultations, public education on genetic issues, and public debate on related ethical issues.
The Journal of Community Genetics has a multidisciplinary scope. It covers medical genetics, epidemiology, genetics in primary care, public health aspects of genetics, and ethical, legal, social and economic issues. Its intention is to serve as a forum for community genetics worldwide, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries.
The journal features original research papers, reviews, short communications, program reports, news, and correspondence. Program reports describe illustrative projects in the field of community genetics, e.g., design and progress of an educational program or the protocol and achievement of a gene bank. Case reports describing individual patients are not accepted.