Investigating Psychological Impact After Receiving Genetic Risk Results-A Survey of Participants in a Population Genomic Screening Program

Overview

Journal J Pers Med

Date 2022 Dec 23

PMID 36556164

Authors

Cara Zayac McCormick

Kristen Dilzell Yu

Alicia Johns

Gemme Campbell-Salome

Miranda L G Hallquist

Amy C Sturm

Adam H Buchanan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Genomic screening programs have potential to benefit individuals who may not be clinically ascertained, but little is known about the psychological impact of receiving genetic results in this setting. The current study sought to further the understanding of individuals’ psychological response to receiving an actionable genetic test result from genomic screening. Telephone surveys were conducted with patient-participants at 6 weeks and 6 months post genetic result disclosure between September 2019 and May 2021 and assessed emotional response to receiving results via the FACToR, PANAS, and decision regret scales. Overall, 354 (29.4%) study participants completed both surveys. Participants reported moderate positive emotions and low levels of negative emotions, uncertainty, privacy concern, and decision regret over time. There were significant decreases in negative emotions (p = 0.0004) and uncertainty (p = 0.0126) between time points on the FACToR scale. “Interested” was the highest scoring discrete emotion (T1 3.6, T2 3.3, scale 0−5) but was significantly lower at 6 months (<0.0001). Coupled with other benefits of genomic screening, these results of modest psychological impact waning over time adds support to clinical utility of population genomic screening programs. However, questions remain regarding how to elicit an emotional response that motivates behavior change without causing psychological harm.

Citing Articles

Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for adult screening.

Smith H, Rubanovich C, Robinson J, Levchenko A, Classen S, Malek J Genet Med. 2024; 26(11):101240.

PMID: 39140259 PMC: 11562923. DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2024.101240.

Returning personal genetic information on susceptibility to arsenic toxicity to research participants in Bangladesh.

Tamayo L, Haque S, Islam T, Ahmed A, Rahman M, Horayra A Environ Res. 2023; 240(Pt 2):117482.

PMID: 37879393 PMC: 10842833. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.117482.

Views of adults living with sickle cell disease on the theoretical return of secondary genomic findings.

Floyd K, Wossenseged F, Buscetta A, Fasaye G, Bonham V Genet Med. 2023; 26(1):100993.

PMID: 37811899 PMC: 10859184. DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100993.

Genomic newborn screening for rare diseases.

Stark Z, Scott R Nat Rev Genet. 2023; 24(11):755-766.

PMID: 37386126 DOI: 10.1038/s41576-023-00621-w.

References

Li M, Bennette C, Amendola L, Hart M, Heagerty P, Comstock B . The Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Validation. J Genet Couns. 2019; 28(2):477-490. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-018-0286-9. View

Venner E, Muzny D, Smith J, Walker K, Neben C, Lockwood C . Whole-genome sequencing as an investigational device for return of hereditary disease risk and pharmacogenomic results as part of the All of Us Research Program. Genome Med. 2022; 14(1):34. PMC: 8962531. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-022-01031-z. View

Zoltick E, Linderman M, McGinniss M, Ramos E, Ball M, Church G . Predispositional genome sequencing in healthy adults: design, participant characteristics, and early outcomes of the PeopleSeq Consortium. Genome Med. 2019; 11(1):10. PMC: 6391825. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-019-0619-9. View

Peterson J, Roden D, Orlando L, Ramirez A, Mensah G, Williams M . Building evidence and measuring clinical outcomes for genomic medicine. Lancet. 2019; 394(10198):604-610. PMC: 6730663. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31278-4. View

Sapp J, Facio F, Cooper D, Lewis K, Modlin E, van der Wees P . A systematic literature review of disclosure practices and reported outcomes for medically actionable genomic secondary findings. Genet Med. 2021; 23(12):2260-2269. PMC: 9017985. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01295-7. View

Leitsalu L, Palover M, Sikka T, Reigo A, Kals M, Parn K . Genotype-first approach to the detection of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk, and effects of risk disclosure to biobank participants. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020; 29(3):471-481. PMC: 7940387. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-00760-2. View

Seymour K, Addington-Hall J, Lucassen A, Foster C . What facilitates or impedes family communication following genetic testing for cancer risk? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of primary qualitative research. J Genet Couns. 2010; 19(4):330-42. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-010-9296-y. View

Carey D, Fetterolf S, Davis F, Faucett W, Kirchner H, Mirshahi U . The Geisinger MyCode community health initiative: an electronic health record-linked biobank for precision medicine research. Genet Med. 2016; 18(9):906-13. PMC: 4981567. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.187. View

Buchanan A, Manickam K, Meyer M, Wagner J, Hallquist M, Williams J . Correction to: Early cancer diagnoses through BRCA1/2 screening of unselected adult biobank participants. Genet Med. 2021; 23(12):2470. PMC: 9119243. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01304-9. View

10.

David S, Dunnenberger H, Ali R, Matsil A, Lemke A, Singh L . Implementing Primary Care Mediated Population Genetic Screening Within an Integrated Health System. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021; 34(4):861-865. DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.04.200381. View

11.

Rauscher E, Hesse C . Investigating uncertainty and emotions in conversations about family health history: a test of the theory of motivated information management. J Health Commun. 2014; 19(8):939-54. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2013.837558. View

12.

Dean M, Davidson L . Previvors' Uncertainty Management Strategies for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Health Commun. 2016; 33(2):122-130. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1250187. View

13.

Grzymski J, Elhanan G, Morales Rosado J, Smith E, Schlauch K, Read R . Population genetic screening efficiently identifies carriers of autosomal dominant diseases. Nat Med. 2020; 26(8):1235-1239. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-0982-5. View

14.

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

15.

Forrest K, Simpson S, Wilson B, van Teijlingen E, McKee L, Haites N . To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clin Genet. 2003; 64(4):317-26. DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00142.x. View

16.

Khoury M, Gregory Feero W, Chambers D, Brody L, Aziz N, Green R . A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health. PLoS Med. 2018; 15(8):e1002631. PMC: 6071954. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002631. View

17.

Lemke A, Amendola L, Thompson J, Dunnenberger H, Kuchta K, Wang C . Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences with Population Genetic Testing Offered Through a Primary Care Network. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2021; 25(2):152-160. PMC: 7891215. DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2020.0275. View

18.

Hardcastle S, Legge E, Laundy C, Egan S, French R, Watts G . Patients' perceptions and experiences of familial hypercholesterolemia, cascade genetic screening and treatment. Int J Behav Med. 2014; 22(1):92-100. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-014-9402-x. View

19.

Andrew Faucett W, Davis F . How Geisinger made the case for an institutional duty to return genomic results to biobank participants. Appl Transl Genom. 2016; 8:33-5. PMC: 4796707. DOI: 10.1016/j.atg.2016.01.003. View

20.

WATSON D, Clark L, Tellegen A . Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 54(6):1063-70. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063. View