Dealing with uncertain results from chromosomal microarray and exome sequencing in the prenatal setting: an international cross-sectional study with healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct qualitative interviews with healthcare providers working in different countries to understand their experiences of dealing with uncertain results from prenatal chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 31 healthcare providers who report or return prenatal CMA and/or ES results (clinicians, genetic counsellors and clinical scientists) in six countries with differing healthcare systems; Australia (4), Denmark (5), Netherlands (6), Singapore (4), Sweden (6) and United Kingdom (6). The topic guide explored the main sources of uncertainty and their management. RESULTS: There was variation in reporting practices both between and across countries for variants of uncertain significance (VUS), however, there was broad agreement on reporting practices for incidental findings. There was also variation in who decides what results are reported (clinical scientists or clinicians). Technical limitations and lack of knowledge (to classify variants and of prenatal phenotypes) were significant challenges, as were turnaround times and lack of guidelines. CONCLUSION: Health professionals around the globe are dealing with similar sources of uncertainty, but managing them in different ways, Continued dialogue with international colleagues on ways of managing uncertain results is important to compare and contrast the benefits and limitations of the different approaches. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Assessing women's preferences towards tests that may reveal uncertain results from prenatal genomic testing: Development of attributes for a discrete choice experiment, using a mixed-methods design

Prenatal DNA tests, such as chromosomal microarray analysis or exome sequencing, increase the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis when fetal structural anomalies are identified. However, some parents will receive uncertain results such as variants of uncertain significance and secondary findings. We aimed to develop a set of attributes and associated levels for a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) that will examine parents' preferences for tests that may reveal uncertain test results. A two phase mixed-methods approach was used to develop attributes for the DCE. In Phase 1, a “long list” of candidate attributes were identified via two approaches: 1) a systematic review of the literature around parental experiences of uncertainty following prenatal testing; 2) 16 semi-structured interviews with parents who had experienced uncertainty during pregnancy and 25 health professionals who return uncertain prenatal results. In Phase 2, a quantitative scoring exercise with parents prioritised the candidate attributes. Clinically appropriate levels for each attribute were then developed. A final set of five attributes and levels were identified: likelihood of getting a result, reporting of variants of uncertain significance, reporting of secondary findings, time taken to receive results, and who tells you about your result. These attributes will be used in an international DCE study to investigate preferences and differences across countries. This research will inform best practice for professionals supporting parents to manage uncertainty in the prenatal setting

Dealing with uncertain results from chromosomal microarray and exome sequencing in the prenatal setting: An international cross-sectional study with healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES: To conduct qualitative interviews with healthcare providers working in different countries to understand their experiences of dealing with uncertain results from prenatal chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 31 healthcare providers who report or return prenatal CMA and/or ES results (clinicians, genetic counsellors and clinical scientists) in six countries with differing healthcare systems; Australia (4), Denmark (5), Netherlands (6), Singapore (4), Sweden (6) and United Kingdom (6). The topic guide explored the main sources of uncertainty and their management. RESULTS: There was variation in reporting practices both between and across countries for variants of uncertain significance, however, there was broad agreement on reporting practices for incidental findings. There was also variation in who decides what results are reported (clinical scientists or clinicians). Technical limitations and lack of knowledge (to classify variants and of prenatal phenotypes) were significant challenges, as were turnaround times and lack of guidelines. CONCLUSION: Health professionals around the globe are dealing with similar sources of uncertainty, but managing them in different ways, Continued dialogue with international colleagues on ways of managing uncertain results is important to compare and contrast the benefits and limitations of the different approaches

Assessing women’s preferences towards tests that may reveal uncertain results from prenatal genomic testing: Development of attributes for a discrete choice experiment, using a mixed-methods design

Prenatal DNA tests, such as chromosomal microarray analysis or exome sequencing, increase the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis when fetal structural anomalies are identified. However, some parents will receive uncertain results such as variants of uncertain significance and secondary findings. We aimed to develop a set of attributes and associated levels for a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) that will examine parents’ preferences for tests that may reveal uncertain test results. A two phase mixed-methods approach was used to develop attributes for the DCE. In Phase 1, a “long list” of candidate attributes were identified via two approaches: 1) a systematic review of the literature around parental experiences of uncertainty following prenatal testing; 2) 16 semi-structured interviews with parents who had experienced uncertainty during pregnancy and 25 health professionals who return uncertain prenatal results. In Phase 2, a quantitative scoring exercise with parents prioritised the candidate attributes. Clinically appropriate levels for each attribute were then developed. A final set of five attributes and levels were identified: likelihood of getting a result, reporting of variants of uncertain significance, reporting of secondary findings, time taken to receive results, and who tells you about your result. These attributes will be used in an international DCE study to investigate preferences and differences across countries. This research will inform best practice for professionals supporting parents to manage uncertainty in the prenatal setting

Factor's that impact on women's decision-making around prenatal genomic tests: an international discrete choice survey

Objective We conducted a survey-based discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to understand the test features that drive women's preferences for prenatal genomic testing, and explore variation across countries. Methods Five test attributes were identified as being important for decision-making through a literature review, qualitative interviews and quantitative scoring exercise. Twelve scenarios were constructed in which respondents choose between two invasive tests or no test. Women from eight countries who delivered a baby in the previous 24 months completed a DCE presenting these scenarios. Choices were modeled using conditional logit regression analysis. Results Surveys from 1239 women (Australia: n = 178; China: n = 179; Denmark: n = 88; Netherlands: n = 177; Singapore: n = 90; Sweden: n = 178; UK: n = 174; USA: n = 175) were analyzed. The key attribute affecting preferences was a test with the highest diagnostic yield (p < 0.01). Women preferred tests with short turnaround times (p < 0.01), and tests reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS; p < 0.01) and secondary findings (SFs; p < 0.01). Several country-specific differences were identified, including time to get a result, who explains the result, and the return of VUS and SFs. Conclusion Most women want maximum information from prenatal genomic tests, but our findings highlight country-based differences. Global consensus on how to return uncertain results is not necessarily realistic or desirable

Psychiatric genetic counseling: A mapping exercise

Psychiatric genetic counseling (PGC) is gradually developing globally, with countries in various stages of development. In some, PGC is established as a service or as part of research projects while in others, it is just emerging as a concept. In this article, we describe the current global landscape of this genetic counseling specialty and this field's professional development. Drawing on information provided by expert representatives from 16 countries, we highlight the following: (a) current understanding of PGC; (b) availability of services for patients; (c) availability of training; (d) healthcare system disparities and cultural differences impacting practice; and (e) anticipated challenges going forward

Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data?

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one’s DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data’s being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our “Your DNA, Your Say” study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one’s DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data’s being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our “Your DNA, Your Say” study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this

Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries

Background: Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this. Methods: We analyse the ‘Your DNA, Your Say’ online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle- and high-income countries, gathered in 15 languages. We examine how participants perceived the relative value of measures to demonstrate the trustworthiness of those using donated DNA and/or medical information. We examine between-country variation and present a consolidated ranking of measures. Results: Providing transparent information about who will benefit from data access was the most important measure to increase trust, endorsed by more than 50% of participants across 20 of 22 countries. It was followed by the option to withdraw data and transparency about who is using data and why. Variation was found for the importance of measures, notably information about sanctions for misuse of data—endorsed by 5% in India but almost 60% in Japan. A clustering analysis suggests alignment between some countries in the assessment of specific measures, such as the UK and Canada, Spain and Mexico and Portugal and Brazil. China and Russia are less closely aligned with other countries in terms of the value of the measures presented. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of transparency about data use and about the goals and potential benefits associated with data sharing, including to whom such benefits accrue. They show that members of the public value knowing what benefits accrue from the use of data. The study highlights the importance of locally sensitive measures to increase trust as genomic data sharing continues globally