Search

About 16% of children have developmental-behavioral disabilities but less than one-third of the children are detected by their health care providers, probably because of the use of informal milestones checklists. The goal of this study is to determine the reliability, validity, accuracy, and utility of a new tool, PEDS: Developmental Milestones (PEDS:DM). Data from a nationally representative sample of 1619 children administered developmental diagnostic measures were mined for items that best predicted performance in each developmental domain. A total of 112 met inclusion criteria, that is, sensitivity/specificity >/= 70%. For each domain/age level (birth to 8 years of age), sensitivity to performance less than or equal to the 16th percentile on diagnostic measures was 83% and specificity was 84%. Reliability was high (test-retest, .98 to .99; interrater, .82 to .96; kappa, .81). The readability level was 1.8 grades (range 1.1 to 2.6). The PEDS:DM appears to be a validated, accurate alternative to informal milestones checklists that are a probable contributor to underdetection of children with delays and disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The literature on the ethics of biobanking often overlooks the practical operations of biobanks. The ethics of stewardship requires that biobank resources are used to conduct beneficial science. Networked biobanks have emerged to increase the scientific benefit of biobank resources, but little is known about whether and how operations of networking may accomplish this goal., Methods: As part of a larger study on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of networked biobanking, we conducted 38 interviews with representatives of 31 networked biobanks. Interviews explored operations of the networks. We used thematic analysis to examine how respondents describe three topics associated with stewarding biobank resources-funding, utilization, and sustainability., Results: Our results highlight that funding, utilization, and sustainability are critical not only to the operation of biobanks, but also to the ethical obligations that biobankers owe to stakeholders to steward the resources. Based on prior research, we hypothesized that respondents would describe networking as beneficial to increasing funding, utilization, and sustainability of the network. Respondents generally found value in networked biobanking, but networking did not necessarily increase funding, utilization, and sustainability., Conclusion: The results presented here support inclusion of funding, utilization, and sustainability as topics of ethical concern in the practice of biobanking and networked biobanking. These issues are rooted in the stewardship obligations that biobankers feel to their partners, client investigators, and participants. The goal of promoting stewardship through networking requires significant time and effort to build governance models that honor the obligations of each individual biobank to their donors and advance the collective goals of the network. We conclude with suggestions offered by respondents to address improving these aspects of stewardship.

Introduction: As population-based screening programs to identify genetic conditions in adults using genomic sequencing (GS) are increasingly available, validated patient-centered outcome measures are needed to understand participants' experience. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess the perceived utility of GS in the context of adult screening., Methods: Informed by a five-domain conceptual model, we used a five-step approach to instrument development and validation: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Adults undergoing risk-based or population-based GS who had received GS results as part of ongoing research studies participated in structured cognitive interviews and two rounds of surveys. After item pool refinement, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments., Results: We derived the 18-item Adult Diagnostic version of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale (total sum score α = .87). Mirroring the Pediatric Diagnostic version, the instrument has a two-factor structure, including an Informational Utility subscale (14 items, α =.89) and an Emotional Utility subscale (4 items, α =.75). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS. Correlations of the Emotional Utility subscale with psychosocial impact and anxiety and depression were weak to moderate., Conclusion: Initial psychometric testing of the Adult Screening GENE-U scale demonstrates its promise, and additional validation in translational genomics research is warranted., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Measuring the effects of genomic sequencing (GS) on patients and families is critical for translational research. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess parents' perceived utility of pediatric diagnostic GS., Methods: Informed by a 5-domain conceptual model, the study comprised 5 steps: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Parents of pediatric patients who had received results of clinically indicated GS participated in structured cognitive interviews and 2 rounds of surveys. After eliminating items based on theory and quantitative performance, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments., Results: We derived the 21-item Pediatric Diagnostic version of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale, which has a 2-factor structure that includes an Informational Utility subscale (16 items, α = 0.91) and an Emotional Utility subscale (5 items, α = 0.71). Scores can be summed to calculate a Total scale score (α = 0.87). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS, and the Emotional Utility subscale was moderately associated with psychosocial impact and depression and anxiety., Conclusion: The pediatric diagnostic GENE-U scale demonstrated good psychometric performance in this initial evaluation and could be a useful tool for translational genomics researchers, warranting additional validation., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Hadley Stevens Smith’s work has been funded by the NIH. She has received compensation as a consultant for Illumina, Inc unrelated to this work. Amy L. McGuire is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board for Nurture Genomics. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Understanding drivers of antibiotic use is key to limiting the development of antimicrobial resistance. Outpatient antibiotic prescribing rates vary substantially across and within states. Kentucky is one of the highest prescribing states, and the southeastern region has rates that are drastically higher than the national average and urban areas of the state. We sought to examine provider perceptions of antibiotic use in this rural area to more effectively guide future interventions and policy., Methods: This study utilized Medicaid prescription claims to identify providers who frequently prescribe antibiotics to children in southeastern Kentucky. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted to elicit provider perspectives on antibiotic overuse., Findings: Individual, in-person interviews were conducted with 25 providers from a variety of practices and training backgrounds (private, nonprofit, retail, physician, advanced practice registered nurses, etc.). The following themes emerged as issues that prescribers consider to contribute to antibiotic overuse: (1) caregiver pressure, especially from grandparents or families who desire a 'quick fix'; (2) business concerns and competition and (3) cultural factors related to poverty and rural locations. Interviewed providers were supportive of public education and had mixed views on the effectiveness of delayed fill or provider feedback initiatives., Conclusions: This study highlights unique challenges associated with antibiotic prescribing in rural areas. Findings will guide future interventions through adaptation of existing strategies to better serve this vulnerable population., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Clinicians practicing in a modern NICU are noticing an increase in the proportion of patients who undergo genetic testing as well as changes in the types of genetic testing patients receive. These trends are not surprising given the increasing recognition of the genetic causes of neonatal illness and recent advances in genetic technology. Yet, the expansion of genetic testing in the NICU also raises a number of ethical questions. In this article, we will review the ethical issues raised by genetic testing, with a focus on the practical implications for neonatologists. First, we outline the complexities of measuring benefit, or utility, for neonatal genetic testing. Next, we discuss potential harms such as inequity, unexpected findings, disability biases, and legal risks. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of ethical issues related to consent for genetic testing. Throughout this article, we highlight solutions to challenges toward the ultimate goal of minimizing harms and maximizing the substantial potential benefits of genetic medicine in the NICU., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Translational research has tended to ignore the question of whether receiving a genomic diagnosis provides utility in community care contexts outside of doctors' offices and hospitals. However, empirical research with parents has highlighted numerous ways that a genomic diagnosis might be of practical value in the care provided by teachers, physical or occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, behavior analysts, and nonphysician mental health providers. In this essay, we propose a new conceptual model of genomic utility that offers the opportunity to better capture a broad range of potential implications of genomic technologies for families in various social and organizational systems. We explore crucial research directions to better understand how redefined utility might affect families and nonphysician professionals., (© 2024 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We aimed to adapt and validate an existing patient-reported outcome measure, the personal-utility (PrU) scale, for use in the pediatric genomic context., Methods: We adapted the adult version of the PrU and obtained feedback from 6 parents whose child had undergone sequencing. The resulting measure, the Parent PrU, was administered to parents of children in 4 pediatric cohorts of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium after they received their children's genomic results. We investigated the measure's structural validity and internal consistency., Results: We conducted a principal-axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation on data from 755 participants to determine structural validity. These analyses yielded a 3-factor solution, accounting for 76% of the variance in the 16 items. We used Cronbach's α to assess the internal consistency of each factor: (1) child benefits (α = .95), (2) affective parent benefits (α = .90), and (3) parent control (α = .94)., Conclusion: Our evidence suggests that the Parent PrU scale has potential as a measure for assessing parent-reported personal utility of their children's genomic results. Additional research is needed to further validate the Parent PrU scale, including by comparing its findings with utility assessments reported by clinicians and children themselves., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the comparability of international ethics principles and practices used in regulating pediatric research as a first step in determining whether reciprocal deference for international ethics review is feasible. Prior studies by the authors focused on other aspects of international health research, such as biobanks and direct-to-participant genomic research. The unique nature of pediatric research and its distinctive regulation by many countries warranted a separate study., Study Design: A representative sample of 21 countries was selected, with geographical, ethnic, cultural, political, and economic diversity. A leading expert on pediatric research ethics and law was selected to summarize the ethics review of pediatric research in each country. To ensure the comparability of the responses, a 5-part summary of pediatric research ethics principles in the US was developed by the investigators and distributed to all country representatives. The international experts were asked to assess and describe whether principles in their country and the US were congruent. Results were obtained and compiled in the spring and summer of 2022., Results: Some of the countries varied in their conceptualization or description of one or more ethical principles for pediatric research, but overall, the countries in the study demonstrated a fundamental concordance., Conclusions: Similar regulation of pediatric research in 21 countries suggests that international reciprocity is a viable strategy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is critical to understand the wide-ranging clinical and non-clinical effects of genome sequencing (GS) for parents in the NICU context. We assessed parents' experiences with GS as a first-line diagnostic tool for infants with suspected genetic conditions in the NICU., Methods: Parents of newborns (N = 62) suspected of having a genetic condition were recruited across five hospitals in the southeast United States as part of the SouthSeq study. Semi-structured interviews (N = 78) were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive, negative, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews., Results: Key themes included that (1) GS in infancy is important for reproductive decision making, preparing for the child's future care, ending the diagnostic odyssey, and sharing results with care providers; (2) the timing of disclosure was acceptable for most parents, although many reported the NICU environment was overwhelming; and (3) parents deny that receiving GS results during infancy exacerbated parent-infant bonding, and reported variable impact on their feelings of guilt., Conclusion: Parents reported that GS during the neonatal period was useful because it provided a "backbone" for their child's care. Parents did not consistently endorse negative impacts like interference with parent-infant bonding.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The uptake of exome/genome sequencing has introduced unexpected testing results (incidental findings) that have become a major challenge for both testing laboratories and providers. While the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has outlined guidelines for laboratory management of clinically actionable secondary findings, debate remains as to whether incidental findings should be returned to patients, especially those representing pediatric populations., Methods: The Sequencing Analysis and Diagnostic Yield working group in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium has collected a cohort of pediatric patients found to harbor a genomic sequencing-identified non-ACMG-recommended incidental finding. The incidental variants were not thought to be associated with the indication for testing and were disclosed to patients and families., Results: In total, 23 "non-ACMG-recommended incidental findings were identified in 21 pediatric patients included in the study. These findings span four different research studies/laboratories and demonstrate differences in incidental finding return rate across study sites. We summarize specific cases to highlight core considerations that surround identification and return of incidental findings (uncertainty of disease onset, disease severity, age of onset, clinical actionability, and personal utility), and suggest that interpretation of incidental findings in pediatric patients can be difficult given evolving phenotypes. Furthermore, return of incidental findings can benefit patients and providers, but do present challenges., Conclusions: While there may be considerable benefit to return of incidental genetic findings, these findings can be burdensome to providers and present risk to patients. It is important that laboratories conducting genomic testing establish internal guidelines in anticipation of detection. Moreover, cross-laboratory guidelines may aid in reducing the potential for policy heterogeneity across laboratories as it relates to incidental finding detection and return. However, future discussion is required to determine whether cohesive guidelines or policy statements are warranted., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Data sharing must be accompanied by responsibility sharing.

The vision of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is that people everywhere will realize the benefits of human genetics and genomics. Implicit in that vision is the importance of ensuring that the benefits of human genetics and genomics research are realized in ways that minimize harms and maximize benefits, a goal that can only be achieved through focused efforts to address health inequities and increase the representation of underrepresented communities in genetics and genomics research. This guidance is intended to advance community engagement as an approach that can be used across the research lifecycle. Community engagement uniquely offers researchers in human genetics and genomics an opportunity to pursue that vision successfully, including by addressing underrepresentation in genomics research., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

In the US, newborn screening (NBS) is a unique health program that supports health equity and screens virtually every baby after birth, and has brought timely treatments to babies since the 1960's. With the decreasing cost of sequencing and the improving methods to interpret genetic data, there is an opportunity to add DNA sequencing as a screening method to facilitate the identification of babies with treatable conditions that cannot be identified in any other scalable way, including highly penetrant genetic neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). However, the lack of effective dietary or drug-based treatments has made it nearly impossible to consider NDDs in the current NBS framework, yet it is anticipated that any treatment will be maximally effective if started early. Hence there is a critical need for large scale pilot studies to assess if and how NDDs can be effectively screened at birth, if parents desire that information, and what impact early diagnosis may have. Here we attempt to provide an overview of the recent advances in NDD treatments, explore the possible framework of setting up a pilot study to genetically screen for NDDs, highlight key technical, practical, and ethical considerations and challenges, and examine the policy and health system implications., (© 2022 The Authors. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: Kentucky ranks among the highest in the nation for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prevalence in children aged 4 to 17 years. In 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a clinical practice guideline based on the DSM-IV. A guideline revision based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-5) was released in October 2019. In this study, we assess and describe pediatric providers' ADHD practices using the 2011 guideline and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria., Methods: This was a cross-sectional, survey-based descriptive study. Kentucky Chapter of the AAP (KY AAP) members were anonymously surveyed. The results were examined for trends in routine practice., Results: Fifty-eight general pediatricians and pediatric residents responded to the survey, yielding a 38% (58/154) response rate. Among respondents performing routine diagnosis of ADHD (N = 51), 73% (37/51) used DSM-5 criteria. Most providers usually or always initially assessed for coexisting behavioral conditions (96%; 49/51), developmental conditions (78%; 39/51), and adverse childhood experiences (73%; 37/51). Among respondents performing routine management of ADHD (N = 55), only 11% (6/55) of respondents indicated that they titrated stimulant medications every 3 to 7 days. After initiation of medication, 78% of providers scheduled a follow-up visit within 2 to 4 weeks. During subsequent visits, only half indicated discussing behavioral interventions, screening for coexisting conditions, and reviewing follow-up teacher-rated ADHD scales., Conclusion: Pediatricians in the KY AAP adhere to the DSM-5 criteria for diagnosing ADHD. Pediatric providers' practices would benefit from education in improvements in pharmacotherapy titration, surveillance of coexisting conditions associated with ADHD, discussion of psychosocial interventions, and school support strategies., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds., Methods: We took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback., Results: Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each., Conclusion: We present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: SouthSeq is a translational research study that undertook genome sequencing (GS) for infants with symptoms suggestive of a genetic disorder. Recruitment targeted racial/ethnic minorities and rural, medically underserved areas in the Southeastern United States, which are historically underrepresented in genomic medicine research., Methods: GS and analysis were performed for 367 infants to detect disease-causal variation concurrent with standard of care evaluation and testing., Results: Definitive diagnostic (DD) or likely diagnostic (LD) genetic findings were identified in 30% of infants, and 14% of infants harbored an uncertain result. Only 43% of DD/LD findings were identified via concurrent clinical genetic testing, suggesting that GS testing is better for obtaining early genetic diagnosis. We also identified phenotypes that correlate with the likelihood of receiving a DD/LD finding, such as craniofacial, ophthalmologic, auditory, skin, and hair abnormalities. We did not observe any differences in diagnostic rates between racial/ethnic groups., Conclusion: We describe one of the largest-to-date GS cohorts of ill infants, enriched for African American and rural patients. Our results show the utility of GS because it provides early-in-life detection of clinically relevant genetic variations not detected by current clinical genetic testing, particularly for infants exhibiting certain phenotypic features., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest All authors declare no competing financial interests in relation to the work described., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Single-site review means protection and efficiency.

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests A.L.M. is a member of The American Journal of Human Genetics editorial board. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking., Methods: Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them., Results: CSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies., Conclusions: Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2021.)

Background: The desire of parents to obtain a genetic diagnosis for their child with intellectual disability and associated symptoms has long been framed as a diagnostic odyssey, an arduous and sometimes perilous journey focused on the goal of identifying a cause for the child's condition. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (N = 60) were conducted with parents of children (N = 59, aged 2-24 years) with intellectual disability and/or developmental delay (IDD) who underwent genome sequencing at a single pediatric multispecialty clinic. Interviews were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive findings, negative findings, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews. Results: Parents reported that obtaining a genetic diagnosis was one important step in their overall goal of helping their child live their best life possible life. They intended to use the result as a tool to help their child by seeking the correct school placement and obtaining benefits and therapeutic services. Conclusions: For the parents of children with IDD, the search for a genetic diagnosis is best conceptualized as a part of parents' ongoing efforts to leverage various diagnoses to obtain educational and therapeutic services for their children. Cleaving parents' search for a genetic diagnosis from these broader efforts obscures the value that some parents place on a sequencing result in finding and tailoring therapies and services beyond the clinic. Interviews with parents reveal, therefore, that genomic sequencing is best understood as one important stage of an ongoing therapeutic odyssey that largely takes place outside the clinic. Findings suggest the need to expand translational research efforts to contextualize a genetic diagnosis within parents' broader efforts to obtain educational and therapeutic services outside clinical contexts.

From its earliest days, the field of human genetics has had a complex, and at times troubling, connection with racist ideologies. Although the modern field of human genetics and genomics has come a long way from those earlier errors, systemic racism remains ingrained in its institutions and practices. Although a variety of efforts are needed to excise systemic racism, we focus in this commentary on the work that must be done in scientific publishing in genetics and genomics. We propose eight principles that are both scientifically grounded and antiracist that we hope will serve as a foundation for the development of policies by publishers and editorial boards that address the unique needs of the field of genetics and genomics. Publishers and journals must go beyond mere policies, however. Editors and reviewers will need training on these policies and principles, and will benefit from resources like rubrics that can be used for evaluating the adherence of submissions to these guidelines.

Employers have begun to offer voluntary workplace genomic testing (wGT) as part of employee wellness benefit programs, but few empirical studies have examined the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of wGT. To better understand employee perspectives on wGT, employees were surveyed at a large biomedical research institution. Survey respondents were presented with three hypothetical scenarios for accessing health-related genomic testing: via (1) their doctor; (2) their workplace; and 3) a commercial direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing company. Overall, 594 employees (28%) responded to the survey. Respondents indicated a preference for genomic testing in the workplace setting (70%; 95% CI 66-74%), followed by doctor's office (54%; 95% CI 50-58%), and DTC testing (20%; 95% CI 17-24%). Prior to participating in wGT, respondents wanted to know about confidentiality of test results (79%), existence of relevant laws and policies (70%), and privacy protection (64%). Across scenarios, 92% of respondents preferred to view the test results with a genetic counselor. These preliminary results suggest that many employees are interested and even prefer genetic testing in the workplace and would prefer testing with support from genetic health professionals. Confirmation in more diverse employer settings will be needed to generalize such findings., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Sanghavi, Feero, Mathews, Prince, Price, Liu, Brothers, Roberts and Lee.)

The analogy between genomics and imaging has been an important touchstone in the debate on how secondary findings should be handled in both clinical and research genomics contexts. However, a critical eye is needed to understand whether an analogy like this one provides an adequate basis for policymaking in genomics. Genomics and imaging are undoubtedly similar in certain ways, but whether that similarity is adequate to justify adopting identical policies is a task that requires further analysis. This is highlighted by the fact that secondary findings are produced in other domains of medicine and public health, such as newborn screening programs, routine laboratory panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing, and that the practices for handling secondary findings in each of these areas are different. These examples demonstrate that medicine has no single comprehensive policy or set of practices for managing secondary findings. Analogies to imaging, newborn screening, routine testing panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing all lead to different policy options for genomics. In this piece we argue that analogies are a powerful way of driving policy discussions by rendering two different areas of medical practice similar, but an overdependence on a single analogy risks limiting policy discussions in potentially deleterious ways., (Copyright © 2020 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anticipating and addressing the social implications of scientific work is a fundamental responsibility of all scientists. However, expectations for ethically sound practices can evolve over time as the implications of science come to be better understood. Contemporary researchers who work with ancient human remains, including those who conduct ancient DNA research, face precisely this challenge as it becomes clear that practices such as community engagement are needed to address the important social implications of this work. To foster and promote ethical engagement between researchers and communities, we offer five practical recommendations for ancient DNA researchers: (1) formally consult with communities; (2) address cultural and ethical considerations; (3) engage communities and support capacity building; (4) develop plans to report results and manage data; and (5) develop plans for long-term responsibility and stewardship. Ultimately, every member of a research team has an important role in fostering ethical research on ancient DNA., (Copyright © 2020 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

When parents or guardians hope for a miracle for their child who is critically ill, ethical and professional challenges can arise. Often, although not always, the parent or guardian's hope for a miracle entails a request for continued life-sustaining interventions. Striking a balance between the pediatrician's conception of good medicine and the parent or guardian's authority requires a response that is sensitive, practical, and ethically sound. In this article, we recommend 3 cumulative steps that promote such a response. First, we recommend ways of exploring essential issues through open inquiry, interdisciplinary dialogue, and self-reflection. As part of this exploration, pediatricians will discover that parents or guardians often have unique ideas about what a miracle might be for their child. The second step includes analyzing this diversity and seeking understanding. We classify the hope for a miracle into 3 distinct categories: integrated, seeking, and adaptive. After the pediatrician has categorized the parent or guardian's hope, they can consider specific recommendations. We detail context-specific responses for each kind of hope. By attending to these nuances, not only will the parent or guardian's perspective be heard but also the pediatrician's recommendation can strike a balance between advocating for their conception of good medicine and respecting the parent or guardian's beliefs., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

This article provides practical guidance for researchers who wish to enroll and collect data from pediatric research participants through online and mobile platforms, with a focus on the involvement of both children and their parents in the decision to participate.

Purpose: As exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) enters the clinic, there is an urgent need to understand the psychological effects of test result disclosure. Through a Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER), phase 1 (CSER1) Consortium collaboration, we evaluated participants' psychological outcomes across multiple clinical settings., Methods: We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of state anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]/Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item), depressive symptoms (HADS/Personal Health Questionnaire 9-item), and multidimensional impact (i.e., test-related distress, uncertainty and positive impact: modified Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment/Feelings About Genomic Testing Results scale)., Results: Anxiety and depression did not increase significantly following test result disclosure. Meta-analyses examining mean differences from pre- to postdisclosure revealed an overall trend for a decrease in participants' anxiety. We observed low levels of test-related distress and perceptions of uncertainty in some populations (e.g., pediatric patients) and a wide range of positive responses., Conclusion: Our findings across multiple clinical settings suggest no clinically significant psychological harms from the return of ES/GS results. Some populations may experience low levels of test-related distress or greater positive psychological effects. Future research should further investigate the reasons for test-related psychological response variation.

The expansion of both formal and informal frameworks of "engaged" research in translational research settings raises emerging and substantial normative concerns. In this article, we draw on findings from a focus group study with members of a national consortium of translational genomic research sites. The goals were to catalog informal participant engagement practices, to explore the perceived roots of these practices and the motivations of research staff members for adopting them, and to reflect on their ethical implications. We learned that participant engagement is a deliberate strategy by research staff members both to achieve instrumental research goals and to "do research differently" in response to past research injustices. While many of the participant engagement practices used in translational genomic research are not new, important insights can be gained through a closer examination of the specific contours of participant engagement in this context. These practices appear to have been shaped by the professional training of genetic counselors and by the interests and needs of participants who enroll in clinical genomics studies. The contours of this contemporary application of engaged research principles have relevance not only to clinical genomics research but also to translational research broadly, particularly for how communities of clinical researchers are interpreting the principle of respect for persons. Our findings invite normative questions about the governance of these practices and sociological questions about whether and how clinical researchers in other professions are also engaging participants in translational research settings., (© 2019 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Implementing genome and exome sequencing in clinical practice presents challenges, including obtaining meaningful informed consent. Consent may be challenging due to test limitations such as uncertainties associated with test results and interpretation, complexity created by the potential for additional findings and high patient expectations. We drew on the experiences of research teams within the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) Consortium on informed consent for clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) to negotiate consensus considerations. We present six considerations for clinicians and 12 key points to communicate as they support patients in deciding whether to undergo CGES. These considerations and key points provide a helpful starting point for informed consent to CGES, grounded in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) experience.

Purpose: Clinical sequencing emerging in health care may result in secondary findings (SFs)., Methods: Seventy-four of 6240 (1.2%) participants who underwent genome or exome sequencing through the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium received one or more SFs from the original American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended 56 gene-condition pair list; we assessed clinical and psychosocial actions., Results: The overall adjusted prevalence of SFs in the ACMG 56 genes across the CSER consortium was 1.7%. Initially 32% of the family histories were positive, and post disclosure, this increased to 48%. The average cost of follow-up medical actions per finding up to a 1-year period was $128 (observed, range: $0-$678) and $421 (recommended, range: $141-$1114). Case reports revealed variability in the frequency of and follow-up on medical recommendations patients received associated with each SF gene-condition pair. Participants did not report adverse psychosocial impact associated with receiving SFs; this was corroborated by 18 participant (or parent) interviews. All interviewed participants shared findings with relatives and reported that relatives did not pursue additional testing or care., Conclusion: Our results suggest that disclosure of SFs shows little to no adverse impact on participants and adds only modestly to near-term health-care costs; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors., (Copyright © 2019 American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In response to genetic testing being widely ordered by nongenetics clinicians, the Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) Workgroup of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen; clinicalgenome.org ) developed guidance to facilitate communication about genetic testing and efficiently improve the patient experience. Considering ethical, legal, and social implications, and medical factors, CADRe developed and pilot tested two rubrics addressing consent for genetic testing and results disclosure. The CADRe rubrics allow for adjusting the communication approach based on circumstances specific to patients and ordering clinicians., Methods: We present results of a formative survey of 66 genetics clinicians to assess the consent rubric for nine genes (MLH1, CDH1, TP53, GJB2, OTC; DMD, HTT, and CYP2C9/VKORC1). We also conducted interviews and focus groups with family and patient stakeholders (N = 18), nongenetics specialists (N = 27), and genetics clinicians (N = 32) on both rubrics., Results: Formative evaluation of the CADRe rubrics suggests key factors on which to make decisions about consent and disclosure discussions for a "typical" patient., Conclusion: We propose that the CADRe rubrics include the primary issues necessary to guide communication recommendations, and are ready for pilot testing by nongenetics clinicians. Consultation with genetics clinicians can be targeted toward more complex or intensive consent and disclosure counseling.

Objective: We describe a stratified sampling design that combines electronic health records (EHRs) and United States Census (USC) data to construct the sampling frame and an algorithm to enrich the sample with individuals belonging to rarer strata., Materials and Methods: This design was developed for a multi-site survey that sought to examine patient concerns about and barriers to participating in research studies, especially among under-studied populations (eg, minorities, low educational attainment). We defined sampling strata by cross-tabulating several socio-demographic variables obtained from EHR and augmented with census-block-level USC data. We oversampled rarer and historically underrepresented subpopulations., Results: The sampling strategy, which included USC-supplemented EHR data, led to a far more diverse sample than would have been expected under random sampling (eg, 3-, 8-, 7-, and 12-fold increase in African Americans, Asians, Hispanics and those with less than a high school degree, respectively). We observed that our EHR data tended to misclassify minority races more often than majority races, and that non-majority races, Latino ethnicity, younger adult age, lower education, and urban/suburban living were each associated with lower response rates to the mailed surveys., Discussion: We observed substantial enrichment from rarer subpopulations. The magnitude of the enrichment depends on the accuracy of the variables that define the sampling strata and the overall response rate., Conclusion: EHR and USC data may be used to define sampling strata that in turn may be used to enrich the final study sample. This design may be of particular interest for studies of rarer and understudied populations.

Purpose: Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term "unsolicited genomic results" (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and (1) perceived need for actionability, (2) impact on patients, (3) health care workflow, (4) return of results process, and (5) responsibility for results., Results: Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based "paths" for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs., Conclusion: The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.

As genomic science has evolved, so have policy and practice debates about how to describe and evaluate the ways in which genomic information is treated for individuals, institutions, and society. The term genetic exceptionalism, describing the concept that genetic information is special or unique, and specifically different from other kinds of medical information, has been utilized widely, but often counterproductively in these debates. We offer genomic contextualism as a new term to frame the characteristics of genomic science in the debates. Using stasis theory to draw out the important connection between definitional issues and resulting policies, we argue that the framework of genomic contextualism is better suited to evaluating genomics and its policy-relevant features to arrive at more productive discussion and resolve policy debates.

Opportunistic genomic screening is becoming increasingly common as laboratories adopt recommendations to report secondary genomic findings. In parallel, interest in using genome sequencing as a population screening test has grown rapidly. We consider here 3 potential applications of genome sequencing for preventive medicine: (1) provider-ordered predispositional testing in healthy adults, (2) indication-based testing with opportunistic screening of secondary results, and (3) population screening in the public health context. We conclude that despite superficial similarities, there are important and fundamental differences in the way medical risks and benefits can be addressed in these 3 contexts. Recommendations to report secondary genomic findings should not be interpreted as an endorsement of population genomic screening. Ongoing work is developing the evidence that will be needed to fully justify current and future initiatives in population genomic screening. Ongoing work is developing the evidence that will be needed to fully justify current and future initiatives in population genomic screening., (Copyright © 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Clinically relevant secondary variants were identified in parents enrolled with a child with developmental delay and intellectual disability., Methods: Exome/genome sequencing and analysis of 789 "unaffected" parents was performed., Results: Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were identified in 21 genes within 25 individuals (3.2%), with 11 (1.4%) participants harboring variation in a gene defined as clinically actionable by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. These 25 individuals self-reported either relevant clinical diagnoses (5); relevant family history or symptoms (13); or no relevant family history, symptoms, or clinical diagnoses (7). A limited carrier screen was performed yielding 15 variants in 48 (6.1%) parents. Parents were also analyzed as mate pairs (n = 365) to identify cases in which both parents were carriers for the same recessive disease, yielding three such cases (0.8%), two of which had children with the relevant recessive disease. Four participants had two findings (one carrier and one noncarrier variant). In total, 71 of the 789 enrolled parents (9.0%) received secondary findings., Conclusion: We provide an overview of the rates and types of clinically relevant secondary findings, which may be useful in the design and implementation of research and clinical sequencing efforts to identify such findings.