Journal Article

Development of patient “profiles” to tailor counseling for incidental genomic sequencing results

Bayoumi, Ahmed, Isaranuwatchai Wanrudee, Mujoomdar Michelle, Bombard Yvonne, Earle, Craig, Offit, Kenneth, Shickh Salma, McCuaig, Laura, Evans, Michael, Casalino Selina, Armel, Susan, Baxter, Nancy, Lorentz, Justin, Thorpe, Kevin, Glogowski, Emily, Clifford, Tammy, Winter-Paquette, Laura, Dhalla Irfan, Robson, Mark, Aronson Melyssa, Semotiuk Kara, Scherer, Stephen, Carlsson, Lindsay, Hamilton, Jada, Graham, Tracy, Kastner, Monica, Bond, Ken, Clausen, Marc, Caulfield, Timothy, Sullivan, Terrance, Eisen, Andrea, Piccinin, Carolyn, Kim, Raymond H, Mancuso Talia, Ott, Karen, Scheer Adena, Elser, Christine, Lerner-Ellis, Jordan, Schrader Kasmintan, Silberman Yael, Mighton Chloe, Panchal Seema, Laupacis Andreas, Joshi Esha, Carroll, June C

2019

Overview

Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the myriad of IR and variation in patients’ preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as “planners” and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because “knowledge is power”. Concerned Individuals defined themselves as “anxious,” and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to “un-know” information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: “hopefully [GS will] be negative, too. And then I can rest easy”. These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.

• Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
• Subject: Counseling / Decision making / Developmental stages / Shared decision making / Whole genome sequencing