Search

Assessing the risk of common, complex diseases requires consideration of clinical risk factors as well as monogenic and polygenic risks, which in turn may be reflected in family history. Returning risks to individuals and providers may influence preventive care or use of prophylactic therapies for those individuals at high genetic risk.To enable integrated genetic risk assessment, the eMERGE (electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics) network is enrolling 25,000 diverse individuals in a prospective cohort study across 10 sites. The network developed methods to return cross-ancestry polygenic risk scores (PRS), monogenic risks, family history, and clinical risk assessments via a Genome Informed Risk Assessment (GIRA) report and will assess uptake of care recommendations after return of results.GIRAs include summary care recommendations for 11 conditions, education pages, and clinical laboratory reports. The return of high-risk GIRA to individuals and providers includes guidelines for care and lifestyle recommendations. Assembling the GIRA required infrastructure and workflows for ingesting and presenting content from multiple sources. Recruitment began in February 2022.Return of a novel report for communicating monogenic, polygenic, and family history based risk factors will inform the benefits of integrated genetic risk assessment for routine health care.

ObjectiveObtaining patient permissions for research contact and for surplus tissue use as part of routine clinical practice can improve research participation. This study aims to investigate the difference in patient permissions for use of surplus tissues, and for direct contact for research, using 2 different methods of solicitation.MethodsAn opt-in, population-based approach for gathering research permissions was implemented in 2 methods. The first method, applied a 2-item patient questionnaire delivered through the electronic health record patient portal. The questionnaire composed of 2 questions (1) whether de-identified surplus specimens may be used for research and (2) whether patients could be contacted about research. In the second method, the same questionnaire was physically presented in clinic within the clinical workflow. We used 1 to 1 propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression to estimate the odds of obtaining permission and the difference between the 2 methods of solicitation.ResultsThe propensity score model matched 8044 observations (4114 submissions in each group). Among the in-clinic submission group, 70.13% provided permission for surplus tissue compared with 66.65% in the patient portal submission group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09–1.32; P DiscussionOur findings suggest that in-clinic solicitation of patient permissions may provide the same opportunity to patients who do not use patient portals and may be associated with higher permission rate for surplus tissue. However, this was primary true for European American and African Americans patients. Patients of other race minorities might respond better to online approaches.ConclusionAdopting a patient-centric approach that combines in-clinic and portal-based administration may be feasible and promising. Further research is required in this area.

ObjectiveAs patient portals are increasingly used for research recruitment, it is important to examine the demographic makeup of research registries that are populated via portals and the factors that influence participation in these registries.MethodsWe examined the response to a routine research preference questionnaire among patients who were enrolled in a patient portal at an academic health center and characterized the sub-population that responded and was tracked in a research preferences registry. We examined the factors that influence choices in two research preferences: future contact for research opportunities and biobanking of de-identified specimens.ResultsOut of 79 834 patients to whom the questionnaire was sent, 32% responded. Of those 74% agreed to future contact and 77% to the biobank preference. We found significantly lower odds of agreement in both preferences in minority populations, especially in the population >65 years of age when stratified by race. Individuals with higher comorbidity indexes had significantly higher odds for agreement.DiscussionThe disparities in volunteerism as expressed by agreement to future contact and willingness to participate in biobanking are exacerbated by lower levels of enrollment in the patient portal by minorities, especially in the oldest age group. Future work should examine other socioeconomic factors and the differences across age groups, sicker individuals, and payer categories.ConclusionAlthough patient portals can be more efficient for recruitment, researchers have to be cognizant of, and proactively address, potential biases when recruiting participants from these registries.

Due to recently proposed changes in the Common Rule regarding the collection of research preferences, there is an increased need for efficient methods to document opt-in research preferences at a population level. Previously, our institution developed an opt-out paper-based workflow that could not be utilized for research in a scalable fashion. This project was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing an electronic health record (EHR)-based active opt-in research preferences program. The first phase of implementation required creating and disseminating a patient questionnaire through the EHR portal to populate discreet fields within the EHR indicating patients' preferences for future research study contact (contact) and their willingness to allow anonymised use of excess tissue and fluid specimens (biobank). In the second phase, the questionnaire was presented within a clinic nurse intake workflow in an obstetrical clinic. These permissions were tabulated in registries for use by investigators for feasibility studies and recruitment. The registry was also used for research patient contact management using a new EHR encounter type to differentiate research from clinical encounters. The research permissions questionnaire was sent to 59,670 patients via the EHR portal. Within four months, 21,814 responses (75% willing to participate in biobanking, and 72% willing to be contacted for future research) were received. Each response was recorded within a patient portal encounter to enable longitudinal analysis of responses. We obtained a significantly lower positive response from the 264 females who completed the questionnaire in the obstetrical clinic (55% volunteers for biobank and 52% for contact). We demonstrate that it is possible to establish a research permissions registry using the EHR portal and clinic-based workflows. This patient-centric, population-based, opt-in approach documents preferences in the EHR, allowing linkage of these preferences to health record information.