Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Public Health Genomics Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-06 DOI:10.1159/000516782
Megan B Raymond, Kayla E Cooper, Lisa S Parker, Vence L Bonham
{"title":"Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants.","authors":"Megan B Raymond, Kayla E Cooper, Lisa S Parker, Vence L Bonham","doi":"10.1159/000516782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Many research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants' (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Support to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"241-252"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8592386/pdf/nihms-1702520.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000516782","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Many research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants' (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP.

Methods: A semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants.

Results: Three content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance.

Conclusion: Support to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.

向低资源研究参与者返还基因组研究成果的实践与态度。
导言:许多研究项目在返回基因组研究结果时都面临着适应低资源研究参与者(LRRP)辅助护理需求的挑战。我们将LRRP定义为低收入,无保险,保险不足或面临根据返回结果采取行动的障碍的人。本研究评估了当前有关LRRP结果返回(RoR)的政策和实践,以及研究者对为LRRP提供辅助护理的态度。方法:对全国35个基因组研究项目的代表进行半结构化访谈研究。符合条件的项目正在向参与者返回或计划返回医学上可操作的基因组结果。结果:从本研究中得出三个内容类别,包括:(1)RoR结构;(2)RoR对LRRP的障碍;(3)满足社区和LRRP需求的解决方案。RoR出现了三种主要结构:(1)嵌入临床护理的RoR,(2)独立于临床护理的RoR,以及(3)依赖临床合作伙伴促进RoR。方案资源不足以满足低死亡率方案的需要通常被认为是一个重大障碍。对于接受基因组结果的LRRP提供辅助护理的责任,举报人的态度和观点差异很大。一些提供信息的人认为,由于他们生活中的其他紧迫问题,如住房和粮食不安全,基因组测序和检测不是LRRP的优先事项。关于LRRP的临床和社会支持是否在研究小组的职权范围内,研究项目有所不同。一些项目为LRRP提供了便利,包括社会工作推荐和保险注册援助。结论:在许多基因组研究项目中,对LRRP下游治疗的支持并不容易获得。需要制定管理从RoR到LRRP的最佳实践和政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health Genomics
Public Health Genomics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信