Suchergebnisse

<b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> Recent genomic medicine initiatives underscore the importance of including diverse participants in research. Considerable literature has identified barriers to and facilitators of increasing diversity, yet disparities in recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of participants from diverse groups continue to limit the generalizability of clinical genomic research. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-gen Exome Sequencing study employed evidence-based strategies to enhance the participation of under-represented minority patients. In this study, we evaluate the impact of our efforts by systematically analyzing the "cascade" of attrition of participants throughout study interactions. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Although successful in recruiting a cohort that included ~30% non-Caucasian patients overall, the study still enrolled and retained a lower proportion of minorities compared to the pool of eligible patients who were nominated. We evaluated sociodemographic characteristics and related variables as potential factors associated with attrition throughout these phases of the study. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> These results suggest that varied approaches will be needed to increase participation in genomic medicine research. Our findings highlight factors to consider when developing strategies to address this critical need. Failing to include a broad range of populations in research studies will exacerbate existing disparities in the translation of genomic sequencing to medical care.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium. METHODS: A key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing. RESULTS: Identifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.