Suchergebnisse

There is growing recognition that the genomic and precision medicine revolution in health care can deepen health disparities. This has produced urgent calls to prioritize inclusion of historically underrepresented populations in research and to make ge­nomic databases more inclusive. Answering the call to address health care disparities in the delivery of genomic and precision medicine requires a consideration of impor­tant, yet understudied, legal issues that have blocked progress. This article introduces a special issue of Ethnicity & Disease, which contains a series of articles that grew out of a public conference to investigate these legal issues and propose solutions.This 2018 conference at Meharry Medical College was part of an NIH-funded project on "LawSeqSM" to evaluate and improve the law of genomics in order to support appro­priate integration of genomics into clinical care. This conference was composed of pre­sentations and interactive sessions designed to specify the top legal barriers to health equity in precision medicine and stimulate potential solutions. This article synthesizes the results of those discussions.Multiple legal barriers limit broad inclusion in genomic research and the development of precision medicine to advance health equity. Problems include inadequate privacy and anti-discrimination protections for re­search participants, lack of health coverage and funding for follow-up care, failure to use law to ensure access to genomic medi­cine, and practices by research sponsors that tolerate and entrench disparities.Analysis of the legal barriers to health equity in precision medicine is essential for progress. Progressive use of law is vital to avoid worsening of health care dispari­ties. Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 3):623-628; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S3.623

The potential of genomics to improve health comes with the peril that the benefits will not be equitably available to all populations. Existing health disparities can be exacer­bated if the implementation of genomic medicine does not intentionally focus on health equity. Defining what health equity means in the context of genomics and outlining how it can be achieved is impor­tant for the future of the field. Strategies to improve health equity include addressing underrepresentation of diverse popula­tions in genomic research, investigating how genomic services can be deployed in diverse health care settings and underserved communities, increasing workforce diversity, supporting infrastructure development out­side traditional research centers, and engag­ing communities and health care providers. By employing these strategies, the genomic research community can advance health equity in genomic medicine. Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):173-178; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S1.173.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Many research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants' (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Three content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Support to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.

Objective: Precision medicine is revolu­tionizing cancer treatment. However, there has been limited investigation of barriers patients endure to access precision cancer medicine. This study aims to report the experiences of underserved patient popula­tions with limited access to genomic testing, clinical trials, and precision cancer treat­ment.Methods: A mixed-method study was employed to quantitatively evaluate patients (N=300) seeking precision cancer medi­cine between January 2014- August 2017. Qualitatively, we conducted semi-structured interviews with eight case managers who navigate the health care and health insur­ance systems to provide patients with access to precision cancer medicine care. All inter­views were analyzed to identify themes.Results: Within our patient cohort, 69% were diagnosed in stage I of cancer disease. Overall, 27 patients (9%) were denied treat­ment as a final outcome of their case due to insurance denials, 35 patients (12%) died before gaining access to precision cancer medicine, and 6 patients (2%) received precision cancer medicine through clinical trials. Four broad thematic areas emerged from the qualitative analysis: 1) lack of patient, provider and insurer knowledge of precision cancer medicine; 2) barriers to clinical trial participation; 3) lack of patient health literacy; and 4) barriers to timely access to care.Conclusion: Our combined analyses sug­gest that both system-level and patient-level barriers limit patient access to precision cancer medicine options. Additionally, we found that these barriers may exist not only for traditionally underserved patients, but also for resourced and insured patients trying to access precision cancer medicine. Ethn Dis. 2022;32(1):39-48; doi:10.18865/ed.32.1.39

Objective: The debate over use of race as a proxy for genetic risk of disease continues, but little is known about how primary care providers (nurse practitioners and general internal medicine physicians) currently use race in their clinical practice. Our study in­vestigates primary care providers' use of race in clinical practice.Methods: Survey data from three cross-sectional parent studies were used. A total of 178 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 759 general internal medicine physicians were included. The outcome of interest was the Racial At­tributes in Clinical Evaluation (RACE) scale, which measures explicit use of race in clinical decision-making. Predictor variables included the Genetic Variation Knowledge Assessment Index (GKAI), which measures the providers' knowledge of human genetic variation.Results: In the final multivariable model, NPs had an average RACE score that was 1.60 points higher than the physicians' score (P=.03). The GKAI score was not significantly associated with the RACE outcome in the final model (P=.67).Conclusions: Physicians had more knowl­edge of genetic variation and used patients' race less in the clinical decision-making process than NPs. We speculate that these differences may be related to differences in discipline-specific clinical training and approaches to clinical care. Further explora­tion of these differences is needed, including examination of physicians' and NPs' beliefs about race, how they use race in disease screening and treatment, and if the use of race is contributing to health care dispari­ties.Ethn Dis.2019;29(1):1-8; doi:10.18865/ ed.29.1.1.

Greater attention towards genetics as a contributor to group health differences may lead to inappropriate use of race/ethnicity and gender as genetic heuristics and exacerbate health disparities. As part of a web-based survey, 1,035 family physicians (FPs) rated the contribution of genetics and environment to racial/ethnic and gender differences in health outcomes, and the importance of race/ethnicity and gender in their clinical decision-making. FPs attributed racial/ethnic and gender differences in health outcomes equally to environment and genetics. These beliefs were not associated with rated importance of race/ethnicity or gender in clinical decision-making. FPs appreciate the complexity of genetic and environmental influences on health differences by race/ethnicity and gender.

Abstract
Background
John Henryism (JH) is a behavioral predisposition for high-effort coping with adversity. JH has been associated with hypertension in Black Americans with low socioeconomic status (SES) and is also found to be associated with psychological well-being. Sickle cell disease (SCD), a rare genetic disease largely affecting Black Americans in the United States, presents as a chronic condition that may benefit from a deeper understanding of the impact of JH on overall health.

Purpose
This study examined the association between high and low JH and diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, hypertension prevalence, and sleep function. We relied on the biopsychosocial transaction model to adjust for relevant clinical and sociodemographic variables.

Methods
This was a cross-sectional secondary analysis of 274 adults with SCD living in the United States and recruited between 2014 and 2020. Study visits consisted of physical examinations, medical history, demographic, and psychosocial questionnaires. Adjusted linear regressions estimated associations between high and low JH and diastolic and systolic blood pressure as well as self-reported sleep function. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations with hypertension prevalence.

Results
High JH was significantly associated with lower diastolic blood pressure (β =  − 2.98; 95% confidence interval =  − 5.92, − 0.04) but higher sleep dysfunction (β = 2.76; 95% confidence interval = 1.45, 4.07).

Conclusions
Overall, we found positive psychological coping resources associated with high JH, with the exception of sleep.
Trial Registration.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02156102.

Engaging communities of color in the genetics public policy conversation is important for the translation of genetics research into strategies aimed at improving the health of all. Implementing model public participation and consultation processes can be informed by the Communities of Color Genetics Policy Project, which engaged individuals from African American and Latino communities of diverse socioeconomic levels in the process of "rational democratic deliberation" on ethical and policy issues stretching from genome research to privacy and discrimination concerns to public education. The results of the study included the development of a participatory framework based on a combination of the theory of democratic deliberation and the community-based public health model which we describe as "community-based dialogue."