Psychological and Behavioural Impact of Returning Personal Results from Whole-genome Sequencing: the HealthSeq Project

Overview

Journal Eur J Hum Genet

Specialty Genetics

Date 2017 Jan 5

PMID 28051073

Citations 33

Authors

Saskia C Sanderson

Michael D Linderman

Sabrina A Suckiel

Randi Zinberg

Melissa Wasserstein

Andrew Kasarskis

George A Diaz

Eric E Schadt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Providing ostensibly healthy individuals with personal results from whole-genome sequencing could lead to improved health and well-being via enhanced disease risk prediction, prevention, and diagnosis, but also poses practical and ethical challenges. Understanding how individuals react psychologically and behaviourally will be key in assessing the potential utility of personal whole-genome sequencing. We conducted an exploratory longitudinal cohort study in which quantitative surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted before and after personal results were returned to individuals who underwent whole-genome sequencing. The participants were offered a range of interpreted results, including Alzheimer's disease, type 2 diabetes, pharmacogenomics, rare disease-associated variants, and ancestry. They were also offered their raw data. Of the 35 participants at baseline, 29 (82.9%) completed the 6-month follow-up. In the quantitative surveys, test-related distress was low, although it was higher at 1-week than 6-month follow-up (Z=2.68, P=0.007). In the 6-month qualitative interviews, most participants felt happy or relieved about their results. A few were concerned, particularly about rare disease-associated variants and Alzheimer's disease results. Two of the 29 participants had sought clinical follow-up as a direct or indirect consequence of rare disease-associated variants results. Several had mentioned their results to their doctors. Some participants felt having their raw data might be medically useful to them in the future. The majority reported positive reactions to having their genomes sequenced, but there were notable exceptions to this. The impact and value of returning personal results from whole-genome sequencing when implemented on a larger scale remains to be seen.

Citing Articles

Research participant perceptions of personal utility in disclosure of individual research results from genomic analysis.

Bogaert B, Crevier M, Roth C, Jox R, Barazzetti G J Community Genet. 2024; 15(5):529-538.

PMID: 39292430 PMC: 11549069. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-024-00734-7.

Interrogating the Value of Return of Results for Diverse Populations: Perspectives from Precision Medicine Researchers.

McMahon C, Foti N, Jeske M, Britton W, Fullerton S, Shim J AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2023; 15(2):108-119.

PMID: 37962912 PMC: 11090989. DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2023.2279965.

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

Peter M, Hammond J, Sanderson S, Gurasashvili J, Hunter A, Searle B Eur J Hum Genet. 2023; 31(12):1407-1413.

PMID: 37789083 PMC: 10689827. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01470-1.

Information provision to caregivers of children with rare dermatological disorders: an international multimethod qualitative study.

Walsh C, Leavey G, McLaughlin M BMJ Open. 2023; 13(7):e070840.

PMID: 37419636 PMC: 10335406. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070840.

A randomized controlled trial of analogue pharmacogenomic testing feedback for psychotropic medications.

Young J, Jimenez A, Pruett M, Hancock L, Schruff M PEC Innov. 2023; 2:100119.

PMID: 37214496 PMC: 10194257. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100119.

References

Weinberg D, Myers R, Keenan E, Ruth K, Sifri R, Ziring B . Genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161(8):537-45. PMC: 4412019. DOI: 10.7326/M14-0765. View

Terry S, Terry P . Power to the people: participant ownership of clinical trial data. Sci Transl Med. 2011; 3(69):69cm3. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001857. View

Manolio T, Abramowicz M, Al-Mulla F, Anderson W, Balling R, Berger A . Global implementation of genomic medicine: We are not alone. Sci Transl Med. 2015; 7(290):290ps13. PMC: 4898888. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aab0194. View

Biesecker L, Mullikin J, Facio F, Turner C, Cherukuri P, Blakesley R . The ClinSeq Project: piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine. Genome Res. 2009; 19(9):1665-74. PMC: 2752125. DOI: 10.1101/gr.092841.109. View

Suckiel S, Linderman M, Sanderson S, Diaz G, Wasserstein M, Kasarskis A . Impact of Genomic Counseling on Informed Decision-Making among ostensibly Healthy Individuals Seeking Personal Genome Sequencing: the HealthSeq Project. J Genet Couns. 2016; 25(5):1044-53. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-016-9935-z. View

Hollands G, French D, Griffin S, Prevost A, Sutton S, King S . The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016; 352:i1102. PMC: 4793156. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i1102. View

Cella D, Hughes C, Peterman A, Chang C, Peshkin B, Schwartz M . A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Health Psychol. 2002; 21(6):564-72. View

Niemiec E, Howard H . Ethical issues in consumer genome sequencing: Use of consumers' samples and data. Appl Transl Genom. 2016; 8:23-30. PMC: 4796706. DOI: 10.1016/j.atg.2016.01.005. View

Stranneheim H, Wedell A . Exome and genome sequencing: a revolution for the discovery and diagnosis of monogenic disorders. J Intern Med. 2015; 279(1):3-15. DOI: 10.1111/joim.12399. View

10.

Gonzaga-Jauregui C, Lupski J, Gibbs R . Human genome sequencing in health and disease. Annu Rev Med. 2012; 63:35-61. PMC: 3656720. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-med-051010-162644. View

11.

Manrai A, Funke B, Rehm H, S Olesen M, Maron B, Szolovits P . Genetic Misdiagnoses and the Potential for Health Disparities. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(7):655-65. PMC: 5292722. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1507092. View

12.

Lewis K, Hooker G, Connors P, Hyams T, Wright M, Caldwell S . Participant use and communication of findings from exome sequencing: a mixed-methods study. Genet Med. 2015; 18(6):577-83. PMC: 4860179. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.133. View

13.

Grosse S, Khoury M . What is the clinical utility of genetic testing?. Genet Med. 2006; 8(7):448-50. DOI: 10.1097/01.gim.0000227935.26763.c6. View

14.

Middleton A, Wright C, Morley K, Bragin E, Firth H, Hurles M . Potential research participants support the return of raw sequence data. J Med Genet. 2015; 52(8):571-4. PMC: 4518751. DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103119. View

15.

Turrini M, Prainsack B . Beyond clinical utility: The multiple values of DTC genetics. Appl Transl Genom. 2016; 8:4-8. PMC: 4796703. DOI: 10.1016/j.atg.2016.01.008. View

16.

Moore B, Hu H, Singleton M, De La Vega F, Reese M, Yandell M . Global analysis of disease-related DNA sequence variation in 10 healthy individuals: implications for whole genome-based clinical diagnostics. Genet Med. 2011; 13(3):210-7. PMC: 3558030. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31820ed321. View

17.

Gonzalez-Garay M, McGuire A, Pereira S, Caskey C . Personalized genomic disease risk of volunteers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110(42):16957-62. PMC: 3801013. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1315934110. View

18.

Bloss C, Schork N, Topol E . Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(6):524-34. PMC: 3786730. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011893. View

19.

Meisel S, Beeken R, van Jaarsveld C, Wardle J . Genetic susceptibility testing and readiness to control weight: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014; 23(2):305-12. PMC: 4361051. DOI: 10.1002/oby.20958. View

20.

Dowswell G, Ismail T, Greenfield S, Clifford S, Hancock B, Wilson S . Men's experience of erectile dysfunction after treatment for colorectal cancer: qualitative interview study. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5824. PMC: 3273733. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5824. View