» Articles » PMID: 36192438

Lessons Learned During the Process of Reporting Individual Genomic Results to Participants of a Population-based Biobank

Abstract

The return of individual genomic results (ROR) to research participants is still in its early phase, and insight on how individuals respond to ROR is scarce. Studies contributing to the evidence base for best practices are crucial before these can be established. Here, we describe a ROR procedure conducted at a population-based biobank, followed by surveying the responses of almost 3000 participants to a range of results, and discuss lessons learned from the process, with the aim of facilitating large-scale expansion. Overall, participants perceived the information that they received with counseling as valuable, even when the reporting of high risks initially caused worry. The face-to-face delivery of results limited the number of participants who received results. Although the participants highly valued this type of communication, additional means of communication need to be considered to improve the feasibility of large-scale ROR. The feedback collected sheds light on the value judgements of the participants and on potential responses to the receipt of genetic risk information. Biobanks in other countries are planning or conducting similar projects, and the sharing of lessons learned may provide valuable insight and aid such endeavors.

Citing Articles

How to communicate and what to disclose to participants in a recall-by-genotype research approach: a multistep empirical study.

Tschigg K, Consoli L, Bruggemann N, Hicks A, Staunton C, Mascalzoni D J Community Genet. 2024; 15(6):615-630.

PMID: 39325315 PMC: 11645387. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-024-00733-8.


Clinical trials in-a-dish for cardiovascular medicine.

Wu X, Swanson K, Yildirim Z, Liu W, Liao R, Wu J Eur Heart J. 2024; 45(40):4275-4290.

PMID: 39270727 PMC: 11491156. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae519.


Opt-in for secondary findings as part of diagnostic whole-exome sequencing: Real-life experience from an international diagnostic laboratory.

Brunfeldt M, Kaare M, Saarinen I, Koskenvuo J, Kaariainen H Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2023; 11(8):e2180.

PMID: 37025058 PMC: 10422066. DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.2180.

References
1.
de Wert G, Dondorp W, Clarke A, Dequeker E, Cordier C, Deans Z . Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020; 29(3):365-377. PMC: 7940405. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-00758-w. View

2.
Widen E, Junna N, Ruotsalainen S, Surakka I, Mars N, Ripatti P . How Communicating Polygenic and Clinical Risk for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Impacts Health Behavior: an Observational Follow-up Study. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2022; 15(2):e003459. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCGEN.121.003459. View

3.
Morris A, Voight B, Teslovich T, Ferreira T, V Segre A, Steinthorsdottir V . Large-scale association analysis provides insights into the genetic architecture and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet. 2012; 44(9):981-90. PMC: 3442244. DOI: 10.1038/ng.2383. View

4.
Wilkins C, Mapes B, Jerome R, Villalta-Gil V, Pulley J, Harris P . Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019; 38(3):399-407. PMC: 6706772. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05046. View

5.
Vears D, Minion J, Roberts S, Cummings J, Machirori M, Blell M . Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. PLoS One. 2021; 16(11):e0258646. PMC: 8575249. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258646. View