Search

Precision public health holds promise to improve disease prevention and health promotion strategies, allowing the right intervention to be delivered to the right population at the right time. Growing concerns underscore the potential for precision-based approaches to exacerbate health disparities by relying on biased data inputs and recapitulating existing access inequities. To achieve its full potential, precision public health must focus on addressing social and structural drivers of health and prominently incorporate equity-related concerns, particularly with respect to race and ethnicity. In this article, we discuss how an antiracism lens could be applied to reduce health disparities and health inequities through equity-informed research, implementation, and evaluation of precision public health interventions. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(11):1210-1218. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307386).

INTRODUCTION: Early adopters play a critical role in the diffusion of medical innovations by spreading awareness, increasing acceptability, and driving demand. Understanding the role of race in the context of other characteristics of potential early adopters can shed light on disparities seen in the early implementation of genomic medicine. We aimed to understand the association between self-identified race and individual experience with genetic testing outside of the research context. METHODS: We assessed factors associated with the odds of having ever received genetic testing prior to enrollment in a genomic sequencing study among 674 self-identified white and 407 self-identified African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean ("Black") individuals. RESULTS: Controlling for individual determinants of healthcare use (demographics, personality traits, knowledge and attitudes, and health status), identifying as Black was associated with lower odds of prior genetic testing (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.27-0.68], p<0.001). In contrast, self-identified race was not associated with the use of non-genetic clinical screening tests (e.g., echocardiogram, colonoscopy). Black and white individuals were similar on personality traits tied to early adoption but differed by sociodemographic and resource facilitators of early adoption. CONCLUSION: Persistent racial disparities among early adopters may represent especially entrenched disparities in access to and knowledge of genomic technologies in clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: Medical decisions parents make on their children's behalf can be challenging. Free online decision support tools are created to help parents faced with these decisions. OBJECTIVE: We used an environmental scan to identify free, online tools that support parents in making decisions about their children's chronic health condition. We described the tools and assessed their potential to harm, content, development process, readability, and whether their use changed decision makers' knowledge and alignment of their preferences with their final decision. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY: Decision aid repositories, Google searches, and key informants identified decision support tools. Eligible tools were freely available online and for parents of children with chronic health conditions. APPRAISAL METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed the tools' quality based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Tool readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease test. RESULTS: From 21 free, online decision support tools, 14 (67%) provided sufficient detail for making a specific decision (IPDAS qualifying criteria). None sufficiently met IPDAS certification criteria necessary to reduce the possibility of patient harms when using the tool. Three (14%) were fairly easy or easy to read. Of those evaluated by developers (n = 6), 2 improved knowledge and 4 improved alignment of preferences with the available options. LIMITATIONS: Google searches and key informant sources are not replicable. CONCLUSIONS: Free, online decision support tools for parents of children with chronic health conditions are of variable quality, most are difficult to read, and there is limited evidence their use achieves intended outcomes. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered with Open Science Framework 20 July 2021(AEST) osf.io/b94yj.

Genetic counselling and testing have utility for people with palliative care needs and their families. However, genetic and palliative care health professionals have described difficulties initiating palliative-genetic discussions. Between March and July 2022, we received n = 73 surveys (6% response rate) from genetic and palliative care health professionals in Australia and New Zealand that assessed and compared barriers and facilitators. The main perceived barrier to both groups was palliative care health professionals' lack of genetic knowledge (44%). Most palliative care health professionals were 'not at all confident' performing several activities, including discussing DNA banking (52%) and knowing their legal responsibilities when sharing genetic information (58%). The most frequently selected facilitator for genetic health professionals was fostering close relationships with palliative care health professionals (52%), while palliative care health professionals indicated a genetic referral template (51%) would be of assistance. Almost all participants agreed genetic discussions do not undermine the central ethos of palliative care (87%). Fewer palliative care health professionals considered themselves well situated to have genetic discussions with a palliative patient's family compared to genetic health professionals (p = 0.014). Our results suggest that genetic and palliative care health professionals support integrating genetics into palliative care, although refinement of the palliative care health professionals' role in this process is required. We have identified intervention targets to overcome barriers related to knowledge and confidence, which ought to be integrated into future interventions designed to support health professionals deliver the benefits of genetic information to people with palliative care needs and their families.

Genetic testing does not always change health behavior. Effective behavior change requires a theory-driven coordinated set of activities (behavior change techniques). Genetic counselors are ideally positioned to facilitate behavior change. We aimed to explore genetic counselors' perceptions of their role in supporting clients' behavior change to inform the design of an intervention. Recruitment was via a professional organization and genetics services. Data were collected from 26 genetic counselors via qualitative focus groups/interview. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and mapped to the COM-B model. We identified three behaviors genetic counselors wanted clients to change: attend appointments, access information, and share information with family members. Strategies for changing clients' behavior included: assessing needs and capabilities, providing information and support, enabling and monitoring behavior change. Barriers included lack of behavior change skills and knowledge, lack of time, and beliefs about ownership of healthcare, directiveness of behavior change, and scope of practice. Equipping genetic counselors to deliver behavior change requires (i) education in behavior change theory and behavior change techniques, (ii) integration of capability, opportunity and motivation assessment into existing practice, and (iii) development of evidence-based strategies using behavior change tools to focus discussions and promote clients' agency to change their behavior.

Whether to undergo genome sequencing in a clinical or research context is generally a voluntary choice. Individuals are often motivated to learn genomic information even when clinical utility-the possibility that the test could inform medical recommendations or health outcomes-is low or absent. Motivations to seek one's genomic information can be cognitive, affective, social, or mixed (e.g., cognitive and affective) in nature. These motivations are based on the perceived value of the information, specifically, its clinical utility and personal utility. We suggest that motivations to learn genomic information are no different from motivations to learn other types of personal information, including one's health status and disease risk. Here, we review behavioral science relevant to motivations that may drive engagement with genome sequencing, both in the presence of varying degrees of clinical utility and in the absence of clinical utility. Specifically, we elucidate 10 motivations that are expected to underlie decisions to undergo genome sequencing. Recognizing these motivations to learn genomic information will guide future research and ultimately help clinicians to facilitate informed decision making among individuals as genome sequencing becomes increasingly available.

An assessment of a teacher's concept of their student's pain could be useful to guide preventative and targeted school-based pain science education. We aimed to assess a teacher's own concept of pain against their concept of their student's pain and examine the psychometric properties of the tool. Teachers of 10-12-year-old children were invited to participate in an online survey via social media. We modified the Concept of Pain Inventory (COPI) by inserting a vignette (COPI-Proxy), and we included questions to explore teacher stigma. Overall, a sample of 233 teachers participated in the survey. The COPI-Proxy scores showed that teachers can conceptualize their student's pain separately but are influenced by their own beliefs. Only 76% affirmed the pain in the vignette as real. Teachers used potentially stigmatizing language to describe pain in their survey responses. The COPI-Proxy had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.72) and moderate convergent validity with the COPI (r = 0.56). The results show the potential benefit of the COPI-Proxy for assessing someone's concept of another's pain, particularly for teachers who are important social influencers of children.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs. METHODS: Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021). RESULTS: In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4). CONCLUSION: PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.

Progress in genomic technologies has spurred innovation in healthcare and medicine, contributing to improved health and well-being [...].

AIM: To investigate parents' preferences and motivations for receiving and discussing prognostic genetic test results. METHOD: We used a cross-sectional, interpretive description qualitative study design. We collected data through semi-structured interviews with Australian parents, which we analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Parents (n = 32) had a child or children with a genetic neurodevelopmental condition, such as fragile X syndrome, DiGeorge (22q11.2 deletion) syndrome, or Angelman syndrome. Parents of mildly impacted or older children were tolerant to prognostic uncertainty. Parents found conversations about their child's prognosis emotional and preferred to discuss their child's potential strengths and challenges. While most were enthusiastic about prognostic tests and described many motivations for testing, the potential for prognostic information to contribute to a loss of hope and stigmatizing societal views were also discussed. INTERPRETATION: Parents had mixed preferences and motivations for acquiring prognostic genetic information about their child, contrasting evidence in other contexts such as cancer where parents typically have minimal tolerance of uncertainty. Health professionals should consider strength-based framing of prognostic information gained from current and emerging technologies when returning results to families.

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists' perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours. Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education. Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling. Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet

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.

BACKGROUND: Precision public health is an emergent field that requires transdisciplinary collaborations and leverages innovative approaches to improve population health. These opportunities have inspired a new generation of precision public health researchers. Despite burgeoning interest in precision public health, there are limited opportunities for researchers to convene and continue the momentum of this field. METHODS: The Transdisciplinary Conference for Future Leaders in Precision Public Health was the among the first events to bring together international researchers and practitioners to learn, network, and agenda set for the future of the field. The conference took place virtually on October 14 and 15, 2021. RESULTS: The conference spanned two days and featured a keynote address, speakers from public health disciplines who are international leaders in precision-based research, networking opportunities, a poster session, and research agenda setting activities. CONCLUSION: The conference was a critical first step to creating a shared international conversation about precision public health, especially among early-stage investigators. This allowed attendees to continue building their individual skills and international collaborations to support the growth of the field of precision public health.

Precision public health is an emerging discipline combining principles and frameworks of precision health with the goal of improving population health. The development of research priorities drawing on the strengths of precision and public health is critical to facilitate the growth of the discipline to improve health outcomes. We held an interactive workshop during a virtual conference bringing together early-career researchers across public health disciplines to identify research priorities in precision public health. The workshop participants discussed and voted to identify three priority areas for future research and capacity building including 1) enhancing equity and access to precision public health research and resources, 2) improving tools and metrics for evaluation and 3) applying principles of implementation science to support sustainable practices. Participants also developed future objectives for achieving each priority. Future efforts by working groups will continue the process of identifying, revising, and advancing critical research priorities to grow the impact of precision public health.

Genetic information can provide clinical benefits to families of palliative patients. However, integration of genetics into mainstream medicine has not focused on palliative populations. We explored the views and experiences of genetic health professionals in addressing genetics with palliative patients, and their families. We conducted an interpretive descriptive qualitative study with genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists using interviews and focus groups. Findings were generated using reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes were identified: (1) Focusing on the benefit to the family, (2) The discomfort of addressing genetics near end-of-life and (3) "It's always on the back-burner": Challenges to getting genetics on the palliative care agenda. Participants discussed the familial benefit of genetics in palliative care alongside the challenges when patients are near end-of-life. They perceived genetics as low priority for palliative care due to misunderstandings related to the value of genetic information. Acknowledging the challenges in the palliative care context, genetic health professionals want improved service leadership and awareness of the familial benefits of palliative genetic testing. Strong leadership to support genetic health professionals in addressing these barriers is needed for the benefits of genetic information to be realised.

Although genetic counseling is traditionally done through in-person, one-on-one visits, workforce shortages call for efficient result return mechanisms. Studies have shown that telephone and in-person return of cancer genetic results are equivalent for patient outcomes. Few studies have been conducted with other modes, result types or racially diverse participants. This study explored participants' perspectives on receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail. Two experienced moderators facilitated six focus groups with 49 individuals who self-identified primarily as African-American and consented to participate in a genome sequencing cohort study. Participants were given a hypothetical pharmacogenomic result report (positive for c.521T>C in SLCO1B1). An accompanying letter explained that the result was associated with statin intolerance along with a recommendation to share it with one's doctor and immediate relatives. Participants reacted to the idea of receiving this type of result by mail, discussing whether the letter's information was sufficient and what they predicted they would do with the result. Two researchers coded the focus group transcripts and identified themes. Many participants thought that it was appropriate to receive the result through the mail, but some suggested a phone call alerting the recipient to the letter. Others emphasized that although a letter was acceptable for disclosing pharmacogenomic results, it would be insufficient for what they perceived as life-threatening results. Most participants found the content sufficient. Some participants suggested resources about statin intolerance and warning signs be added. Most claimed they would share the result with their doctor, yet few participants offered they would share the result with their relatives. This exploratory study advances the evidence that African-American research participants are receptive to return of certain genetic results by approaches that do not involve direct contact with a g

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Although romantic couple concordance has been demonstrated across a wide array of health behaviors, little research has examined dyadic concordance in health beliefs. This study examined the extent to which cohabitating romantic dyads' attitudes and beliefs coincide (i.e., dyadic concordance) in addition to how well they predict intentions to learn genomic sequencing results. The actor-partner interdependence model was applied to cross-sectional data from 81 dyads in an exome sequencing study who were surveyed about their risk perceptions, worry, information avoidance, attitudes, and intentions toward learning carrier results. Information avoidance tendencies were positively correlated between partners, but there was low concordance on other beliefs. Individuals' attitudes and information avoidance predicted their own intentions to learn results. Additionally, partners' information avoidance tendencies predicted their partner's intentions to learn results. Future research should explore mechanisms through which one's partner's information avoidance may affect one's own intentions and behaviors.

Genomics researchers are increasingly interested in what constitutes effective engagement of individuals from underrepresented groups. This is critical for longitudinal projects needed to inform the implementation of precision medicine. Return of results is one opportunity for engagement. The aims of this study were to determine participant perspectives on optimal engagement strategies and priorities for return of results and the extent to which focus groups were an effective modality for gathering input on these topics. We conducted six professionally moderated focus groups with 49 participants in a genomics research study. Transcripts from audio-recorded sessions were coded by two researchers and themes were discussed with the wider research team. All groups raised the issue of mistrust. Individuals participated nonetheless to contribute their perspectives and benefit their community. Many group members preferred engagement modalities that are offered to all participants and allow them to share the nuances of their perspectives over the use of participant representatives and surveys. All groups created a consensus ranking for result return priorities. Results for life-threatening conditions were the highest priority to return, followed by those related to treatable conditions that affect physical or mental health. We advocate for engagement strategies that reach as many participants as possible and allow them to share their perspectives in detail. Such strategies are valued by participants, can be effective for developing return of results policies, and may help institutions become more trustworthy.

Knowledge of genetic mechanisms contributing to neurodevelopmental conditions is advancing. This is informing development of new drugs to treat or ameliorate these conditions, through targeting underlying genetic pathways. Drugs are tested in clinical trials, necessitating parents to engage with decisions about whether to enroll their child. In this article, we consider important ethical issues to anticipate as clinical research opportunities in genetic neurodevelopmental conditions arise. For example, genetic pathways targeted by the drugs may interact with valued character and personality traits. It is essential that recruitment and consent processes are optimized for families who will grapple with whether these novel drug treatments interact with their child's personality and authentic identity. We call for focused social science research and further normative analysis so that parents are better supported to make informed choices. Additionally, clinical research regulators should have a sound understanding of the contextual experiences regarding how this population of parents engages with decisions.

Precision public health is a relatively new field that integrates components of precision medicine, such as human genomics research, with public health concepts to help improve population health. Despite interest in advancing precision public health initiatives using human genomics research, current and future opportunities in this emerging field remain largely undescribed. To that end, we provide examples of promising opportunities and current applications of genomics research within precision public health and outline future directions within five major domains of public health: biostatistics, environmental health, epidemiology, health policy and health services, and social and behavioral science. To further extend applications of genomics within precision public health research, three key cross-cutting challenges will need to be addressed: developing policies that implement precision public health initiatives at multiple levels, improving data integration and developing more rigorous methodologies, and incorporating initiatives that address health equity. Realizing the potential to better integrate human genomics within precision public health will require transdisciplinary efforts that leverage the strengths of both precision medicine and public health.

© 2020 The Royal Society of New Zealand. Taxonomic information for New Zealand mosquito species is predominantly morphological with very few molecular data available to date. In this study, the mitochondrial COI gene and nuclear ITS1 were amplified and sequenced from DNA templates representing 17 species; 15 previously known New Zealand species, a newly discovered undescribed Aedes species from the Chatham Islands and a recently eradicated invader, Ae. camptorhynchus. This paper provides DNA barcoding sequences for the entire known New Zealand mosquito fauna, the first for the majority of these species. Phylogenetic analysis of COI and ITS1 indicated that the endemic species are all genetically distinct from the exotic species examined including vector species of pathogens of human diseases. The genus Opifex is distant from the genus Aedes based on analysis of ITS1 sequences, and Ae. chathamicus is more closely related to species within Aedes than to the genus Opifex. Results show Culex asteliae to be a valid species but Cx. rotoruae is not necessarily so. The Aedes species appears to be closely related to Ae. subalbirostris. The introduced Cx. quinquefasciatus was clearly shown to be related to Cx. pipiens; however, the endemic Cx. pervigilans was not. No evidence of population variation based on geographic location was detected.

How individuals perceive uncertainties in sequencing results may affect their clinical utility. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of uncertainties in carrier results and how they relate to psychological well-being and health behavior. Post-reproductive adults (N = 462) were randomized to receive carrier results from sequencing through either a web platform or a genetic counselor. On average, participants received two results. Group differences in affective, evaluative, and clinical uncertainties were assessed from baseline to 1 and 6 months; associations with test-specific distress and communication of results were assessed at 6 months. Reductions in affective uncertainty (∆x̅ = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.02) and evaluative uncertainty (∆x̅ = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.87) followed receipt of results regardless of randomization arm at 1 month. Participants in the web platform arm reported greater clinical uncertainty than those in the genetic counselor arm at 1 and 6 months; this was corroborated by the 1,230 questions asked of the genetic counselor and residual questions reported by those randomized to the web platform. Evaluative uncertainty was associated with a lower likelihood of communicating results to health care providers. Clinical uncertainty was associated with a lower likelihood of communicating results to children. Learning one's carrier results may reduce perceptions of uncertainties, though web-based return may lead to less reduction in clinical uncertainty in the short term. These findings warrant reinforcement of clinical implications to minimize residual questions and promote appropriate health behavior (communicating results to at-risk relatives in the case of carrier results), especially when testing alternative delivery models.

Personal genomic tests (PGTs) for multiple purposes are marketed to ostensibly healthy people in Australia. These tests are generally marketed and purchased online commercially or can be ordered through a health professional. There has been minimal engagement with Australians about their interest in and experience with ordering a PGT. As part of a multistage, interdisciplinary project, an online survey (Stage 2 of the Genioz study) was available from May 2016 to May 2017. In total, 3253 respondents attempted the survey, with 2395 completed Australian responses from people with and without experience of having a PGT: 72% were female; 59% of the whole sample were undertaking/or had a university education; and, overall, age ranged from 18—over 80. A total of 571 respondents reported having had a genetic test, 373 of these classifiable as a PGT. A bivariate analysis suggests people who have undergone PGT in our sample were: women aged 25 and over; or in a high socioeconomic group, or have a personal or family diagnosis of a genetic condition (P ≤ 0.03). After a multivariate analysis, socioeconomic status and a genetic condition in the family were not of significance. The most common types of PGT reported were for carrier status and ancestry. Findings suggest greater awareness of, and an increasing demand for non-health related PGT in Australia. To support both consumers and health care professionals with understanding PGT results, there is a need for appropriate support and resources.

Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study – Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians’ experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or w

© 2018, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. 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.

Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. This study explored patients' experiences and perceptions of living with thalassemia (an inherited hematologic disorder), perceptions of social stigma, and impact on disclosure decision-making. Semistructured, in-person interviews were conducted in Singapore with 30 individuals: 16 thalassemia major patients and 14 parents of children with thalassemia. Findings were indicative of felt or enacted stigma that may have influenced disclosure decisions. Although affected individuals commonly disclosed their thalassemia diagnosis to family members, they either downplayed the condition with or avoided disclosure to unrelated individuals. Disclosure outside the family occurred only in response to triggers, such as questions about absences due to medical care. Health professionals should provide anticipatory guidance about disclosure strategies when managing individuals with thalassemia.

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Genome sequencing involves a host of decisions on the part of the provider and client, including whether to be tested, when and how to receive sequencing results, whether to inform biological relatives, and whether to take protective actions to reduce risk. In this chapter, we consider the relevance of research in the decision sciences to decisions in the genome sequencing context. We review the role of cognitive factors (e.g., use of heuristics, low numeracy), affective factors (e.g., incidental emotions, affective forecasting), and motivational factors (e.g., regarding oneself positively, adhering to social norms) in judgment and decision-making. In so doing, we consider how knowledge of these factors might inform practice toward the end of improving preference-based decision-making regarding the results of genome sequencing.

© 2018, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Purpose: We examined the role of ethnic identity (which measures the degree to which individuals identify with their ethnic group) in beliefs about, and intentions to learn, genomic results. Methods: A longitudinal cohort was recruited to implement genome sequencing among healthy participants self-identifying as African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean, 40–65 years old (n = 408). Before receiving genomic results, participants completed a survey assessing social and behavioral constructs related to health, genomics, and ethnic identity. Results: Ethnic identity was positively correlated with perceived value of genomic results and expected benefits from genomic research participation. Among participants with stronger ethnic identity, cognitive beliefs (perceived value of results [b = 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.29, 0.98, p < 0.001] and expected benefits from genomic research participation [b = 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.12, 0.53, p = 0.002]) were associated with intentions to receive results. Among those with weaker ethnic identity, there was no such association. Conclusion: Individuals with stronger ethnic identity seem to attend more to cognitive beliefs such as the value of genomic results when deliberating receipt of results compared with those with weaker ethnic identity. Understanding ethnic identity variation and its influence on genome sequencing perceptions and intentions can inform future research opportunities using ethnic identity to explore specific practical, clinical questions.

© 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. The study objective was to examine bivariate and multivariate associations among worry, perceptions, attitudes, sociodemographics, and uptake of cancer-related germline genetic testing. We used data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 5.1), administered (January–May 2017) to a nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized adults (n = 3285). Those who had “heard about genetic tests that determine how a disease can be treated” had a higher likelihood of Lynch syndrome and BRCA1/2 testing (aRR = 2.57, p < 0.01; aRR = 3.23, p < 0.04). Attitudinal and psychosocial variables were not associated with uptake. Future research should explore ways to educate the public about the potential use of genetics in treatment decision-making.

Personal genomic testing provides healthy individuals with access to information about their genetic makeup for purposes including ancestry, paternity, sporting ability and health. Such tests are available commercially and globally, with accessibility expected to continue to grow, including in Australia; yet little is known of the views/expectations of Australians. Focus groups were conducted within a multi-stage, cross-disciplinary project (Genioz) to explore this. In mid-2015, 56 members of the public participated in seven focus groups, allocated into three age groups: 18–24, 25–49, and ≥50 years. Three researchers coded transcripts independently and generated themes. Awareness of personal genomic testing was low, but most could deduce what “personal genomics” might entail. Very few had heard of the term “direct-to-consumer” testing, which has implications for organisations developing information to support individuals in their decision-making. Participants’ understanding of genetics was varied and drawn from several sources. There were diverse perceptions of the relative influence of genetics and environment on health, mental health, behavior, talent, or personality. Views about having a personal genomic test were mixed, with greater interest in health-related tests if they believed there was a reason for doing so. However, many expressed scepticisms about the types of tests available, and how the information might be used; concerns were also raised about privacy and the potential for discrimination. These exploratory findings inform subsequent stages of the Genioz study, thereby contributing to strategies of supporting Australians to understand and make meaningful and well-considered decisions about the benefits, harms, and implications of personal genomic tests.

AIM: To determine (i) the proportion of different referral sources for new referrals to paediatric specialist outpatient clinics and (ii) any association of referral source with utilisation of additional health services. METHODS: Survey of parents presenting with their child at five paediatric specialist outpatient clinics at two Melbourne public hospitals. RESULTS: Just over half (52%) of the respondents were referred by a general practitioner (GP). The remainder were referred by a paediatrician (27%) at hospital discharge (16%) or from the ED (6%). Most respondents (71%) reported that their child also has a referral to see another specialist for the same health concern but had not yet had the consultation; 44% had consulted another doctor for the same health concern between receiving the referral and the appointment. Paediatrician referrals were more likely to see another specialist for the same health concern compared to other referral sources (P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Only half of the referrals of new patients to paediatric specialist outpatient clinics come from GPs. Future research should investigate whether multiple referral sources have a negative impact on the co-ordination and cost of paediatric health care.