Towards equitable and trustworthy genomics research.

Funder: National Institutes of HealthThe representation of traditionally scientifically underserved groups in genomic research continues to be low despite concerns about equity and social justice and the scientific and clinical need. Among the factors that account for this are a lack of trust in the research community and limited diversity in this community. The success of the multiple initiatives that aim to improve representation relies on the willingness of underrepresented populations to make data and samples available for research and clinical use. In this narrative review, we propose that this requires building trust, and set out four approaches to demonstrating trustworthiness, including increasing diversity in the research workforce, and meaningful engagement with underrepresented communities in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. Capacity building globally will ensure that actual and perceived exploitation and 'helicopter' research could be eliminated

Delivering genome sequencing in clinical practice: an interview study with healthcare professionals involved in the 100 000 Genomes Project

Objectives: Genome sequencing is poised to be incorporated into clinical care for diagnoses of rare diseases and some cancers in many parts of the world. Healthcare professionals are key stakeholders in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing-based services. Our aim was to explore views of healthcare professionals with experience of offering genome sequencing via the 100 000 Genomes Project. Design: Interview study using thematic analysis. Setting: Four National Health Service hospitals in London. Participants: Twenty-three healthcare professionals (five genetic clinicians and eight non-genetic clinicians (all consultants), and 10 ‘consenters’ from a range of backgrounds) involved in identifying or consenting patients for the 100 000 Genomes Project. Results: Most participants expressed positive attitudes towards genome sequencing in terms of improved ability to diagnose rare diseases, but many also expressed concerns, with some believing its superiority over exome sequencing had not yet been demonstrated, or worrying that non-genetic clinicians are inadequately prepared to discuss genome sequencing results with patients. Several emphasised additional evidence about utility of genome sequencing in terms of both main and secondary findings is needed. Most felt non-genetic clinicians could support patients during consent, as long as they have appropriate training and support from genetic teams. Many stated genetics experts will play a vital role in training and supporting non-genetic clinicians in variant interpretation and results delivery, particularly for more complex cases. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals responsible for delivering clinical genome sequencing have largely positive views about the potential for genome sequencing to improve diagnostic yield, but also significant concerns about practical aspects of offering these tests. Non-genetic clinicians delivering genome sequencing require guidance and support. Additional empirical evidence is needed to inform policy and practice, including how genome compares to exome sequencing; utility of secondary findings; training, in particular of non-genetic health professionals; and mechanisms whereby genetics teams can offer appropriate support to their non-genetics colleagues

Development and mixed-methods evaluation of an online animation for young people about genome sequencing

Abstract: Children and young people with rare and inherited diseases will be significant beneficiaries of genome sequencing. However, most educational resources are developed for adults. To address this gap in informational resources, we have co-designed, developed and evaluated an educational resource about genome sequencing for young people. The first animation explains what a genome is, genomic variation and genome sequencing (“My Genome Sequence”: http://bit.ly/mygenomesequence), the second focuses on the limitations and uncertainties of genome sequencing (“My Genome Sequence part 2”: http://bit.ly/mygenomesequence2). In total, 554 school pupils (11–15 years) took part in the quantitative evaluation. Mean objective knowledge increased from before to after watching one or both animations (4.24 vs 7.60 respectively; t = 32.16, p < 0.001). Self-rated awareness and understanding of the words ‘genome’ and ‘genome sequencing’ increased significantly after watching the animation. Most pupils felt they understood the benefits of sequencing after watching one (75.4%) or both animations (76.6%). Only 17.3% felt they understood the limitations and uncertainties after watching the first, however this was higher among those watching both (58.5%, p < 0.001). Twelve young people, 14 parents and 3 health professionals consenting in the 100,000 Genomes Project reported that the animation was clear and engaging, eased concerns about the process and empowered young people to take an active role in decision-making. To increase accessibility, subtitles in other languages could be added, and the script could be made available in a leaflet format for those that do not have internet access. Future research could focus on formally evaluating the animations in a clinical setting

Participant experiences of genome sequencing for rare diseases in the 100,000 Genomes Project: a mixed methods study

In this mixed methods study, a survey and in-depth interviews were used to explore whether decision regret and the psychological impact of receiving genome sequencing (GS) results differed between parents and patients, and between those who received a genetic diagnosis and those who did not. Participants (n = 77) completed a survey that included the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) and an adaptation of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) at least 12 months after consenting for GS for rare disease diagnosis in the 100,000 Genomes Project. Survey participants were invited to take part in an interview and 39 agreed; 12 with a diagnosis, 5 with variants of uncertain significance, and 19 with no pathogenic findings identified. Both survey and interview findings indicated that decision regret was low. DRS scores revealed no differences in levels of regret between parents and patients, or between those with a diagnosis and those without. Though MICRA scores indicated minimal evidence of negative psychological impacts of receiving GS results, subscale analysis revealed greater distress and uncertainty for parents compared to patients. Receiving a diagnosis was found not to influence MICRA scores, supporting interview findings of both positive and negative emotional and psychological impacts irrespective of a genetic diagnosis. Our findings have implications for policy and practice as GS is integrated into the UK and worldwide; notably, that expectation-setting is critical when offering GS, and that post-test counselling is important regardless of the GS result received, with parents perhaps needing additional emotional support

Knowledge, attitudes and decision regret: a longitudinal survey study of participants offered genome sequencing in the 100,000 Genomes Project

We used cross-sectional surveys to compare the knowledge, attitudes, and decision regret of participants who had consented for genome sequencing (GS) for rare disease diagnosis in the 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP) across two timepoints (at the time of consenting for GS (T1) and 12-18 months later (T2)). At T1, participants (n = 504) completed a survey that included measures of general knowledge of GS ("Knowledge of Genome Sequencing" (KOGS)), specific knowledge of GS and attitudes towards GS ("General attitudes" and "Specific attitudes"). At T2, participants (n = 296) completed these same assessments (apart from the specific knowledge scale) together with an assessment of decision regret towards GS ("Decisional Regret Scale"). At 12-18 months after consenting for GS, participants' basic knowledge of GS had remained stable. General knowledge of GS varied across topics; concepts underlying more general information about genetics were better understood than the technical details of genomic testing. Attitudes towards GS at T2 were generally positive, and feelings towards GS (both positive and negative) remained unchanged. However, those who were more positive about the test at the outset had greater specific knowledge (as opposed to general knowledge) of GS. Finally, although the majority of participants indicated feeling little regret towards undergoing GS, those with low positive attitude and high negative attitude about GS at T1 reported greater decision regret at T2. Careful assessment of patient knowledge about and attitudes towards GS at the time of offering testing is crucial for supporting informed decision making and mitigating later regret

Managing expectations, rights, and duties in large-scale genomics initiatives: a European comparison

This article reports on the findings of an international workshop organised by the UK-France Genomics and Ethics Network (UK-FR GENE) in 2021. They focus specifically on how collection, storage and sharing of genomic data may pose challenges to established principles and values such as trust, confidentiality, and privacy in countries that have implemented, or are about to implement, large-scale national genomic initiatives. These challenges impact the relationships between patients/citizens and medicine/science, and on each party’s rights and duties towards each other. Our geographic scope of comparative analysis includes initiatives underway in England (Genomics England), France (Plan France Médecine Génomique) and Germany (German Human Genome-Phenome Archive). We discuss existing as well as future challenges raised by large-scale health data collection and management in each country. We conclude that the prospects of improving individualised patient healthcare as well as contributing to the scientific and research prosperity of any given nation engaged in health data collection, storage and processing are undeniable. However, we also attempt to demonstrate that biomedical data requires careful management, and transparent and accountable governance structures that are clearly communicated to patients/participants and citizens. Furthermore, when third parties partake as stakeholders, transparent consent protocols relative to data access and use come centre stage, and patient benefits must clearly outweigh commercial interests. Finally, any cross-border data transfer needs to be carefully managed to address incoherencies between regional, national, and supranational regulations and recommendations

Professional duties are now considered legal duties of care within genomic medicine

Abstract: The legal duty to protect patient confidentiality is common knowledge amongst healthcare professionals. However, what may not be widely known, is that this duty is not always absolute. In the United Kingdom, both the General Medical Council governing the practice of all doctors, as well as many other professional codes of practice recognise that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to break confidentiality. This arises when there is a wider duty to protect the health of others, and when the risk of non-disclosure outweighs the potential harm from breaking confidentiality. We discuss this situation specifically in relation to genomic medicine where relatives in a family may have differing views on the sharing of familial genetic information. Overruling a patient’s wishes is predicated on balancing the duty of care towards the patient versus protecting their relative from serious harm. We discuss the practice implications of a pivotal legal case that concluded recently in the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors. Professional guidance is already clear that genetic healthcare professionals must undertake a balancing exercise to weigh up contradictory duties of care. However, the judge has provided a new legal weighting to these professional duties: ‘The scope of the duty extends not only to conducting the necessary balancing exercise but also to acting in accordance with its outcome’ [1: 189]. In the context of genomic medicine, this has important consequences for clinical practice