Felicia Russo, Debanjana Chatterjee, Natalia DeMaria, Michelle E Florido, Maddalena Marasa, Maya Sabatello, Julia Wynn, Hila Milo Rasouly
{"title":"Negative results from DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases: the recipients' experience.","authors":"Felicia Russo, Debanjana Chatterjee, Natalia DeMaria, Michelle E Florido, Maddalena Marasa, Maya Sabatello, Julia Wynn, Hila Milo Rasouly","doi":"10.1007/s12687-024-00736-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases holds promise for advancing personalized medicine and improving public health. Yet as most individuals pursuing such screening receive negative results, the return of results process must ensure that negative results and their implications are clearly understood. We explored the experiences of adults who received negative results from such screening as part of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics consortium Phase 3 project (eMERGE-3) at Columbia University. In addition to a laboratory report and a standard counseling letter explaining the negative results, participants were randomized to receive (or not) a vignette explaining the results. A diverse cohort of 437 adult participants completed both baseline and post-result surveys. Many participants reported motivations that did not match the screening goals and included hope for diagnosis and family disease risk. A quarter of participants reported not feeling confident explaining their results to others (n = 105, 24%), and those who did not receive the vignette were less confident than those who did (29% versus 19% respectively; p-value = 0.02). Open-text responses about personal and family members' reactions to the results suggested that some perceived an exaggerated benefit from the negative result and might forgo more appropriate genetic testing. Our findings highlight the complexity of returning negative results and raise concerns that participants might forgo more suitable genetic testing. Future research is needed to compare the efficacy of different forms of ancillary materials on individuals' comprehension of negative results.</p>","PeriodicalId":46965,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Genetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","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/s12687-024-00736-5","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
DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases holds promise for advancing personalized medicine and improving public health. Yet as most individuals pursuing such screening receive negative results, the return of results process must ensure that negative results and their implications are clearly understood. We explored the experiences of adults who received negative results from such screening as part of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics consortium Phase 3 project (eMERGE-3) at Columbia University. In addition to a laboratory report and a standard counseling letter explaining the negative results, participants were randomized to receive (or not) a vignette explaining the results. A diverse cohort of 437 adult participants completed both baseline and post-result surveys. Many participants reported motivations that did not match the screening goals and included hope for diagnosis and family disease risk. A quarter of participants reported not feeling confident explaining their results to others (n = 105, 24%), and those who did not receive the vignette were less confident than those who did (29% versus 19% respectively; p-value = 0.02). Open-text responses about personal and family members' reactions to the results suggested that some perceived an exaggerated benefit from the negative result and might forgo more appropriate genetic testing. Our findings highlight the complexity of returning negative results and raise concerns that participants might forgo more suitable genetic testing. Future research is needed to compare the efficacy of different forms of ancillary materials on individuals' comprehension of negative results.
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.