Search

Facial imaging and facial recognition technologies, now common in our daily lives, also are increasingly incorporated into health care processes, enabling touch-free appointment check-in, matching patients accurately, and assisting with the diagnosis of certain medical conditions. The use, sharing, and storage of facial data is expected to expand in coming years, yet little is documented about the perspectives of patients and participants regarding these uses. We developed a pair of surveys to gather public perspectives on uses of facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and in health-related research in the United States. We used Qualtrics Panels to collect responses from general public respondents using two complementary and overlapping survey instruments; one focused on six types of biometrics (including facial images and DNA) and their uses in a wide range of societal contexts (including healthcare and research) and the other focused on facial imaging, facial recognition technology, and related data practices in health and research contexts specifically. We collected responses from a diverse group of 4,048 adults in the United States (2,038 and 2,010, from each survey respectively). A majority of respondents (55.5%) indicated they were equally worried about the privacy of medical records, DNA, and facial images collected for precision health research. A vignette was used to gauge willingness to participate in a hypothetical precision health study, with respondents split as willing to (39.6%), unwilling to (30.1%), and unsure about (30.3%) participating. Nearly one-quarter of respondents (24.8%) reported they would prefer to opt out of the DNA component of a study, and 22.0% reported they would prefer to opt out of both the DNA and facial imaging component of the study. Few indicated willingness to pay a fee to opt-out of the collection of their research data. Finally, respondents were offered options for ideal governance design of their data, as "open science"; "gated science"; and "closed science." No option elicited a majority response. Our findings indicate that while a majority of research participants might be comfortable with facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and health-related research, a significant fraction expressed concern for the privacy of their own face-based data, similar to the privacy concerns of DNA data and medical records. A nuanced approach to uses of face-based data in healthcare and health-related research is needed, taking into consideration storage protection plans and the contexts of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mobile devices with health apps, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, crowd-sourced information, and other data sources have enabled research by new classes of researchers. Independent researchers, citizen scientists, patient-directed researchers, self-experimenters, and others are not covered by federal research regulations because they are not recipients of federal financial assistance or conducting research in anticipation of a submission to the FDA for approval of a new drug or medical device. This article addresses the difficult policy challenge of promoting the welfare and interests of research participants, as well as the public, in the absence of regulatory requirements and without discouraging independent, innovative scientific inquiry. The article recommends a series of measures, including education, consultation, transparency, self-governance, and regulation to strike the appropriate balance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A positive family history of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has been associated with risk awareness and risk‐reducing behaviours among the unaffected relatives. Yet, little is known about how people with a positive family history for diabetes develop and manage their personal sense of risk. Objective: To characterize two key concepts, salience and vulnerability, within the familial risk perception (FRP) model among unaffected individuals, at increased familial risk for T2D. Design: We conducted a mixed method study. Descriptions of salience and vulnerability were collected through semi‐structured interviews. Participant's perception of self‐reported risk factors (family history, age, race/ethnicity, medical history, weight and exercise) was measured using the Perceived Risk Factors for T2D Tool and was compared to a clinical evaluation of the same risk factors. Results: We identified two components of salience: (a) concern for developing T2D and (b) risk awareness triggers, and two features of vulnerability: (a) statement of risk and (b) risk assessment devices. Although few participants (26%) were concordant between their perceived and clinical overall T2D risk, concordance for individual risk factors was higher, ranging from 42% (medical history) to 90% (family history). Discussion and conclusion: Both familial and non‐familial events lead people to contemplate their T2D risk, even among people who have a positive family history. Participants often downplayed their overall risk and underestimated their overall risk compared to a clinical risk assessment of the same self‐reported risk factors. Clinicians could leverage key components of the FRP process as way to engage patients in risk reduction strategies earlier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Genetic Counselor SARS-CoV-2 Impact Survey (GCSIS) describes the impact of the pandemic on genetic counselors and genetic counseling services. With this information, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) can better: (1) support advocacy and access efforts for genetic counseling services at both federal- and state-level; (2) promote effective billing and reimbursement for genetic counseling services provided via telemedicine; and (3) make decisions about how to best support genetic counselors. The survey was hosted on a novel data collection and analysis platform from LunaDNA and was open to all genetic counselors (n = 5,531 based on professional society membership). Survey response rate was approximately 3.8% (n = 212/5,531), with a demographic distribution broadly representative of the North American genetic counseling field. Genetic counselors remained largely employed, providing genetic counseling services throughout the pandemic, although almost one in five respondents (17%, n = 35/211) reported experiencing some degree of pandemic-related financial hardship. Nearly all respondents (90%, n = 104/115) transitioned, at least in part, to remote work settings, with about half (47%. n = 88/189) reporting restrictions in the care they were able to provide. These shifts came at a cost: existing gaps in Medicare status for genetic counselors and attendant reimbursement concerns led to uncertainty about whether genetic counselors' work will be reimbursed. Outside of work, caregiving responsibilities increased for 34% (n = 74/212) of respondents. The results of the GCSIS amplify the importance of federal- and state-level advocacy efforts for genetic counselors and their employers. They also highlight the impact of broader cultural intransigence on our majority-female profession. During the pandemic, genetic counselors continued to provide care, but without consistent financial support or expectation of reimbursement. The ability to attract and retain talented professionals to the genetic counseling field will hinge on the success of continued advocacy efforts., (© 2021 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

The United States' All of Us Research Program is a longitudinal research initiative with ambitious national recruitment goals, including of populations traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, many of whom have high geographic mobility. The program has a distributed infrastructure, with key programmatic resources spread across the US. Given its planned duration and geographic reach both in terms of recruitment and programmatic resources, a diversity of state and territory laws might apply to the program over time as well as to the determination of participants' rights. Here we present a listing and discussion of state and territory guidance and regulation of specific relevance to the program, and our approach to their incorporation within the program's informed consent processes.

The lack of diversity of populations included in genomics databases is an important inhibitor of genomic discovery from bench to bedside. One way to increase the diversity of participants is to ensure that informed consent processes are designed for cultural and linguistic concordance for non-majority populations. This article describes two case studies of genomics research studies that are using novel approaches to informed consent to increase recruitment and retention of participants from traditionally underrepresented populations: The Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, part of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and the All of Us Research Program, part of the Precision Medicine Initiative. We conclude by proposing a community of practice among researchers seeking to improve informed consent to increase diversity in genomics research., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)