Suchergebnisse

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> The aim of this study was to assess the baseline interest of the public in whole-genome sequencing (WGS) for oneself, parents' interest in WGS for their youngest children, and factors associated with such interest. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A random sample of adults from a probability-based nationally representative online panel was surveyed. All participants were provided basic information about WGS and then asked about their interest in WGS for themselves. Those participants who were parents were additionally asked about their interest in WGS for their children. The order in which parents were asked about their interest in WGS for themselves and for their child was randomized. The relationship between parent/child characteristics and interest in WGS was examined. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The overall response rate was 62% (55% among parents). 58.6% of the total population (parents and nonparents) was interested in WGS for themselves. Similarly, 61.8% of the parents were interested in WGS for themselves and 57.8% were interested in WGS for their youngest children. Of note, 84.7% of the parents showed an identical interest level in WGS for themselves and their youngest children. Mothers as a group and parents whose youngest children had ≥2 health conditions had significantly more interest in WGS for themselves and their youngest children, while those with conservative political ideologies had considerably less. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> While US adults have varying interest levels in WGS, parents appear to have similar interests in genome testing for themselves and their youngest children. As WGS technology becomes available in the clinic and private market, clinicians should be prepared to discuss WGS risks and benefits with their patients.

To advance scientific knowledge about human diseases and effective therapeutic treatments, investigators need access to human biospecimens and associated data. However, regulatory and procedural requirements may impede investigators' efforts to share biospecimens and data within and across institutions. Although a number of studies have explored experiences and attitudes of study participants and others about biospecimen and data sharing, less is known about investigators' perspectives. We conducted an electronic survey to learn about investigators' experiences and attitudes about research with biospecimens and associated data. A total of 114 practicing scientists from a pool of 60 university medical schools with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) participated. We found a high degree of variability in investigators' experiences with institutional review boards (IRBs) when seeking approval to conduct biospecimen research, as well as differences in approaches to informed consent for the collection of specimens. Participants also expressed concerns that the risks of biospecimen research may be overestimated by IRBs. This research suggests that the current regulatory environment for human research protections may require reconsideration with regard to standards for collection, use, and sharing of biospecimens and data.

Obtaining informed consent for bloodspot research from newborn screening is particularly challenging due to the hectic environment of the postnatal period and the relatively abstract nature of future, unspecified research on the biospecimens. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in three Michigan hospitals to compare two different consent processes (video and interactive tablet "app") with standard brochure-based consent in the Michigan BioTrust for Health. Results indicated higher knowledge scores for the video and app groups as well as significantly higher scores on satisfaction, amount of information, and clarity with the information provided. More research is needed to find the right amount of information for informed decision-making, and additional feasibility studies are needed to assess implementation strategies.

ABSTRACTTranslational research has tended to ignore the question of whether receiving a genomic diagnosis provides utility in community care contexts outside of doctors' offices and hospitals. However, empirical research with parents has highlighted numerous ways that a genomic diagnosis might be of practical value in the care provided by teachers, physical or occupational therapists, speech‐language pathologists, behavior analysts, and nonphysician mental health providers. In this essay, we propose a new conceptual model of genomic utility that offers the opportunity to better capture a broad range of potential implications of genomic technologies for families in various social and organizational systems. We explore crucial research directions to better understand how redefined utility might affect families and nonphysician professionals.

Multiple ongoing, government-funded national efforts longitudinally collect health data and biospecimens for precision medicine research with ascertainment strategies increasingly emphasizing underrepresented groups in biomedical research. We surveyed chronic kidney disease patients from an academic, public integrated tertiary care system in Cleveland, Ohio, to examine local attitudes toward participation in large-scale government-funded studies. Responses (n = 103) indicate the majority (71%) would participate in a hypothetical national precision medicine cohort and were willing to send biospecimens to a national repository and share de-identified data, but <50% of respondents were willing to install a phone app to track personal data. The majority of participants (62%) indicated that return of research results was very important, and the majority (54%) also wanted all of their research-collected health and genetic data returned. Response patterns did not differ by race/ethnicity. Overall, we found high willingness to participate among this Cleveland patient population already participating in a local genetic study. These data suggest that despite common perceptions, subjects from communities traditionally underrepresented in genetic research will participate and agree to store samples and health data in repositories. Furthermore, most participants want return of research results, which will require a plan to provide these data in a secure, accessible, and understandable manner.