Riggan, Kirsten A

AbstractBackgroundBlack breast and ovarian cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical cancer trials disproportionate to the prevalence of these cancers in Black females. Historically, lower enrollment has been attributed to individualized factors, including medical mistrust, but more recently structural factors, including systemic racism, have received additional scrutiny. We interviewed Black women with a personal or family history of breast and ovarian cancer to understand their views and experiences related to research participation.MethodsQualitative interviews were conducted via telephone or video conference and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes related to the offer and participation in cancer clinical trials and research studies, impact on cancer care, and recommendations to increase enrollment of Black patients.ResultsSixty‐one Black women completed an interview. Participants expressed that Black women are underrepresented in cancer research, and that this negatively impacted their own care. Many cited past historical abuses, including the Tuskegee syphilis trial, as a potential factor for lower enrollment but suggested that lower enrollment was better understood in the context of the entirety of their healthcare experiences, including present‐day examples of patient mistreatment or dismissal. Participants suggested that proactive community engagement, transparency, and increased representation of Black research team members were strategies likely to foster trust and bolster research participation.Conclusion(s)Medical mistrust is only a partial factor in the lower participation of Black patients in cancer research. Researchers should implement the strategies identified by our participants to promote diverse enrollment and ensure that Black patients are included in future therapeutic advances.

Abstract: Objective: Pediatric diagnoses of sex chromosome multisomies (SCMs) have increased as genetic testing has expanded. However, depending on SCM presentation, there may be significant delays between symptom recognition and diagnosis. We conducted a survey of parents of children diagnosed with SCMs to understand their experiences receiving an SCM diagnosis and their support needs. Methods: We conducted an inductive qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses for iterative themes related to presenting symptoms, diagnostic odyssey, immediate and long-term support needs, and awareness of SCMs. Results: Of the 323 parents who completed the survey, 185 parents received a pediatric diagnosis (0–21 years) in a child. Many parents expressed feelings of relief when receiving the diagnosis, especially if it occurred after a lengthy diagnostic odyssey. Parents reported frustration that their child's nonmedical symptoms, including learning disabilities, speech delays, attention deficits, and behavioral issues, were not flagged as potential indications for SCMs and suggested that greater awareness of SCMs by pediatricians, educators, and other professionals involved in their child's care may lead to earlier diagnosis and intervention. Conclusion: This is the largest qualitative study to date examining parent and caregiver experiences with a pediatric diagnosis of SCMs. Increased knowledge and awareness of nonmedical SCM symptoms are needed among medical, education, occupational, and psychology professionals for early testing referral and improved support of children with SCMs.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the healthcare system have been widespread, with many institutions in the United States pausing elective procedures to redirect resources to critical care. Fertility care and assisted reproductive procedures were classified as elective procedures and similarly paused. We conducted qualitative interviews with patients and/or their partners ( n = 25 female patients; n = 3 male partners) receiving care at a fertility clinic in the Midwest to understand patient appraisal of COVID-19 risk on the resumption of care following a month-long closure of an infertility clinic, and patient agreement with the clinic closure. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed from a grounded theory approach. Study participants reported an increased sense of urgency due to the delay in fertility procedures. This urgency often superseded concerns of potential COVID-19 infection, motivating patients to continue fertility treatment during a pandemic. In hindsight, some participants did not agree with the clinic's closure and treatment cessation, feeling that these steps negatively interrupted time-sensitive reproductive goals. Patient responses highlight the need for additional resources to support decision-making during times of crisis. Triaging patients based on time-sensitivity of treatment instead of a total shutdown respects patient autonomy for continuing treatment amidst uncertain COVID-19-impact.

Uterine fibroids are noncancerous tumors associated with significant morbidity among symptomatic patients. While medical and surgical treatments have expanded, hysterectomy remains common. We interviewed women diagnosed with uterine fibroids ( n = 47) to explore their experiences and recommendations for shared decision-making. A majority were non-Hispanic Black, highly educated (51.1%), and had graduate degrees (40.4%). Participants with both positive and negative provider experiences expressed a desire for a more proactive therapeutic approach, including a presentation by their provider of the spectrum of medical and surgical treatment options, and greater provider recognition of the impact of symptoms on quality of life. Women advocated for expanded shared decision-making that acknowledged their contribution to their own treatment plan and felt early screening and improved patient/provider education of uterine fibroid symptoms would facilitate greater congruence between treatment approaches and patient goals. Perceptions of insufficient input into their treatment plans frequently served as a barrier to care-seeking and treatment acceptance among women with uterine fibroid symptoms. Improved discussion of treatment options in the context of the unique symptom burden and values of the patient may facilitate greater provider trust and acceptance of uterine fibroid treatment.

AbstractSex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) occur in 1 in every 400 births. SCAs are highly variable and have uncertain prognoses, complicating the delivery of prenatal cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) results or diagnosis following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling. Using a mixed‐methods approach, we explored the experiences of parents receiving a prenatal diagnosis of a fetus with SCA. Responses to open‐ended questions were qualitatively analyzed. Of the 323 parents who completed the survey, 122 received a prenatal diagnosis and answered at least one open‐ended question. Most parents did not recall being informed that cfDNA screening or amniocentesis could reveal the presence of a SCA prior to testing and described feeling unprepared for a positive result. Variation was found between parents who were delivered a diagnosis by a genetic professional versus other clinical specialties. Many parents expressed that the diagnosis was delivered in a way that emphasized the negative attributes of the SCA and that they were provided limited support materials. Parents who received a prenatal diagnosis of a SCA expressed a desire for more supportive delivery of prenatal diagnosis that focuses on parental education and nuanced discussion of potential phenotypes. Genetic counselors should be aware of the range of parental experiences when receiving a SCA diagnosis from non‐genetic providers. Prenatal SCA diagnoses are predicted to increase as prenatal cfDNA screening becomes more widely used. Collaborations for greater provider education and comprehensive materials on SCAs are essential to facilitate the delivery of SCA diagnoses and improve parent understanding and support.

AbstractThe most common sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA) (47, XXY; 47, XYY; 47, XXX) frequently result in a milder phenotype than autosomal aneuploidies. Nevertheless, these conditions are highly variable and more symptomatic phenotypes may require significant clinical involvement, including specialty care. While historically most individuals with mild phenotypes remained undiagnosed during their lifetime, the increasing use of genetic testing in clinical care has increased the prenatal and postnatal diagnosis of SCAs. These genetic tests are frequently ordered by nongenetic providers who are also responsible for delivering the diagnosis. We surveyed parents of children (n = 308) to evaluate their experience of receiving a diagnosis and their support needs. The majority (73.3%) received the diagnosis from a nongenetic medical provider. Following a prenatal diagnosis parents reported experiencing depression, anxiety, and less optimism than those receiving a postnatal diagnosis. Few parents reported receiving materials explaining their child's condition that they found to be up‐to‐date, accurate, and unbiased. The frequently negative reported experiences of parents at time of diagnosis suggests more educational opportunities should be provided for nongenetic providers in order to become more informed about these conditions and communicate the diagnosis in a way parents experience as supportive.

The application of gene editing technologies to prevent or mitigate genetic disease in humans is considered one of its most promising applications. However, as the technology advances, it is imperative to understand the views of the broader public on how it should be used. We conducted focus groups to understand public views on the ethical permissibility and governance of gene editing technologies in humans. A total of 50 urban and semirural residents in the upper Midwest took part in six focus groups. Participants expressed multiple concerns about nonmedical uses of gene editing and its potential for unknown harms to human health, and were divided as to whether the individual patient or “medical experts” should be charged with overseeing the scope of its application. As potential stakeholders, the perspectives from the general public are critical to assess as genome editing technologies advance toward the clinic.