Mathews, Debra J H

Abstract The 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule (Final Rule) increases patient access to their health records but raises concerns about distress and misunderstanding of automatically released results and documentation. Little is known about genetic counselors' (GCs') experiences with the Final Rule. In Fall 2023, we conducted a cross‐sectional survey of US GCs about the Final Rule's perceived impact on practice and assessed if being the ordering versus non‐ordering provider for genetic testing affected perceptions of Final Rule‐related changes. GCs ( n = 102) reported demographic and workplace characteristics, institutional policy changes, workflow changes, and perceived patient harms and benefits due to the Final Rule. To compare ordering and non‐ordering providers, we conducted Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables and trend tests for ordinal variables. Open‐response questions elicited examples of positive and negative patient impacts, the effects of patient characteristics, and practice changes in response to the Final Rule. Twenty‐seven GCs were ordering providers and 66 were non‐ordering providers. Relative to ordering providers, non‐ordering providers expressed stronger agreement with statements indicating concern about the emotional impact on patients reviewing results or notes without support ( p = 0.002, 33% vs. 51% strongly agree), patients misunderstanding or misinterpreting results ( p = 0.025, 44% vs. 70% strongly agree), and patients contacting the inappropriate party to discuss results ( p = 0.023, 19% vs. 48% strongly agree). Agreement with the statement “patients have more knowledge/context/questions at our disclosure session due to previous results review” also differed by ordering provider status ( p = 0.007). In open responses, GCs expressed concerns about patients' strong emotional reactions, patients misinterpreting results, workflow disruptions, and widening health disparities. Benefits included patients' ability to be reassured, informed, or empowered earlier; ease of sharing health information; more efficient workflow due to the automatic release of results. These results emphasize the importance of clear communication within health systems and between patients and providers.

There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency. Methods: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018. Results: 397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants. Conclusion: Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.