Negative results from DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases: the recipients' experience.

IF 1.5 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Journal of Community Genetics Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1007/s12687-024-00736-5
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.

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
基于 DNA 的成人发病人群筛查的阴性结果:受试者的经验。
基于 DNA 的成人发病人群筛查有望推动个性化医疗和改善公共卫生。然而,由于大多数进行此类筛查的人都会得到阴性结果,因此结果返还程序必须确保阴性结果及其影响得到清楚的理解。作为哥伦比亚大学电子病历和基因组学联合会第三阶段项目(eMERGE-3)的一部分,我们探讨了从此类筛查中得到阴性结果的成年人的经历。除了实验室报告和解释阴性结果的标准咨询信外,参与者还被随机分配接受(或不接受)解释结果的小插图。437 名成年参与者完成了基线和结果后调查。许多参与者报告的动机与筛查目标不符,包括希望得到诊断和家族疾病风险。四分之一的参与者表示没有信心向他人解释自己的结果(n = 105,24%),没有收到小册子的参与者比收到小册子的参与者更没有信心(分别为 29% 和 19%;p 值 = 0.02)。关于个人和家庭成员对结果反应的开放文本回复表明,有些人认为阴性结果的益处被夸大了,因此可能会放弃更合适的基因检测。我们的研究结果突显了返回阴性结果的复杂性,并引发了参与者可能会放弃更合适的基因检测的担忧。未来的研究需要比较不同形式的辅助材料对个人理解阴性结果的效果。
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
Journal of Community Genetics
Journal of Community Genetics GENETICS & HEREDITY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
54
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.
期刊最新文献
Population molecular genetics in Brazil: From genomic databases and research to the implementation of precision medicine. Knowledge and perception of medical students on genetics in the genomic era. Key challenges in developing a gene therapy for Usher syndrome: machine-assisted scoping review. Key contextual factors involved with participation in medical and genomic screening and research for African American and White Americans: a qualitative inquiry. Factors influencing pregnant women's decision to accept or decline prenatal screening and diagnosis - a qualitative 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