Beck, Annika T.

AbstractAs pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing increases in popularity, lay concepts of drug‐gene interactions set the stage for shared decision making in precision medicine. Few studies explore what recipients of PGx results think is happening in their bodies when a drug‐gene interaction is discovered. To characterize biobank participants’ understanding of PGx research results, we conducted a focus group study, which took place after PGx variants conferring increased risk of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency were disclosed to biobank contributors. DPD deficiency confers an increased risk of adverse reaction to commonly used cancer chemotherapeutics. Ten focus groups were conducted, ranging from two to eight participants. Fifty‐four individuals participated in focus groups. A framework approach was used for descriptive and explanatory analysis. Descriptive themes included participants’ efforts to make sense of PGx findings as they related to: (1) health implications, (2) drugs, and (3) genetics. Explanatory analysis supplied a functional framework of how participant word choices can perform different purposes in PGx communication. Results bear three main implications for PGx research‐related disclosure. First, participants’ use of various terms suggest participants generally understanding their PGx results, including how positive PGx results differ from positive disease susceptibility genetic results. Second, PGx disclosure in biobanking can involve participant conflation of drug‐gene interactions with allergies or other types of medical reactions. Third, the functional framework suggests a need to move beyond a deficit model of genetic literacy in PGx communication. Together, findings provide an initial evidence base for supporting bidirectional expert‐recipient PGx results communication.

As genomic sequencing expands to screen larger numbers of individuals, offering genetic counseling to everyone may not be possible. One approach to managing this limitation is for a genetic counselor to communicate clinically actionable results in person or by telephone, but report other results by mail. We employed this approach in a large genomic implementation study. In this paper, we describe participants’ experiences receiving genomic screening results by mail. We conducted 50 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who received neutral genomic screening results by mail. Most participants were satisfied receiving neutral results by mail. Participants generally had a good understanding of results; however, a few participants had misunderstandings about their genomic screening results, including mistaken beliefs about their disease risk and the comprehensiveness of the test. No one reported plans to alter health behaviors, defer medical evaluations, or take other actions that might be considered medically problematic. Reporting neutral results by mail is unlikely to cause recipients distress or generate misunderstandings that may result in reduced vigilance in following recommended preventive health strategies. Nonetheless, some individuals may benefit from additional genetic counseling support to help situate their results in the context of personal concerns and illness experiences.

Introduction: Minority communities have had limited access to advances in genomic medicine. Mayo Clinic and Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, partnered to assess the feasibility of offering genomic screening to Latino patients receiving care at a community-based health center. We examined primary care provider (PCP) experiences reporting genomic screening results and integrating those results into patient care. Methods: We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and other members of the health care team charged with supporting patients who received positive genomic screening results. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Results: Of the 500 patients who pursued genomic screening, 10 received results indicating a genetic variant that warranted clinical management. PCPs felt genomic screening was valuable to patients and their families, and that genomic research should strive to include underrepresented minorities. Providers identified multiple challenges integrating genomic sequencing into patient care, including difficulties maintaining patient contact over time; arranging follow-up medical care; and managing results in an environment with limited genetics expertise. Providers also reflected on the ethics of offering genomic sequencing to patients who may not be able to pursue diagnostic testing or follow-up care due to financial constraints. Conclusions: Our results highlight the potential benefits and challenges of bringing advances in precision medicine to community-based health centers serving under-resourced populations. By proactively considering patient support needs, and identifying financial assistance programs and patient-referral mechanisms to support patients who may need specialized medical care, PCPs and other health care providers can help to ensure that precision medicine lives up to its full potential as a tool for improving patient care.

As applications of genomic sequencing have expanded, offering genetic counseling support to all patients is arguably no longer practical. Additionally, whether individuals desire and value genetic counseling services for genomic screening is unclear. We offered elective genetic counseling to 5110 individuals prior to undergoing sequencing and 2310 participants who received neutral results to assess demand. A total of 0.2% of the study participants accessed genetic counseling services prior to sequencing, and 0.3% reached out after receiving neutral results. We later conducted 50 interviews with participants to understand why they did not access these services. Many interviewees did not recall the availability of genetic counseling and were unfamiliar with the profession. Interviewees described not needing counseling before sequencing because they understood the study and felt that they could cope with any result. Counseling was considered equally unnecessary after learning neutral results. Although the participants had questions about their results, they did not feel that speaking with a genetic counselor would be helpful. Genomic screening efforts that employ opt-in models of genetic counseling may need to clarify the potential value of genetic counseling support from the outset and feature genetic counseling services more prominently in program materials.