Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29739461›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2018

Clinical providers' experiences with returning results from genomic sequencing: an interview study.

Julia Wynn, Katie Lewis, Laura M Amendola, Barbara A Bernhardt, Sawona Biswas, Manasi Joshi, Carmit McMullen, Sarah Scollon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Introducing HL7 FHIR Genomics Operations: a developer-friendly approach to genomics-EHR integration.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Julia WynnDepartment of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Katie LewisMedical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Laura M AmendolaDivision of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Barbara A BernhardtDivision of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sawona BiswasDepartment of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Manasi JoshiThe Center for Health Research, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA.
Carmit McMullenCenter for Health Research - Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA.
Sarah ScollonDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, 1102 Bates St. FC 1200, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. sxscollo@txch.org.ORCID 0000-0003-2017-0245

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024156 · NCRR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2006 to 2011
$53.0M
Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000040 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2012 to 2015
$26.2M
Exome sequencing in Diverse Populations in Colorado & OregonU01HG007292 · NHGRI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI LEO, MICHAEL C, WILFOND, BENJAMIN SIMON · 2017 to 2021
$15.7M
Clinical sequencing in cancer: Clinical ethical and technological studiesU01HG006507 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JARVIK, GAIL PAIRITZ · 2012 to 2016
$10.6M
Applying Genomic Sequencing in PediatricsU01HG006546 · NHGRI · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI KRANTZ, IAN D. · 2012 to 2016
$10.6M
Clinical Implementation of Carrier Testing using NGSUM1HG007292 · NHGRI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GODDARD, KATRINA A., WILFOND, BENJAMIN SIMON · 2013 to 2016
$8.2M
CSER RoRC Centralized Support Coordinating CenterU01HG007307 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BURKE, WYLIE G., JARVIK, GAIL PAIRITZ · 2013 to 2016
$3.6M
Impact of return of incidental genetic test results to research participants in tR01HG006600 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CHUNG, WENDY K, PHELAN, JO C · 2011 to 2013
$2.1M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024156NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006600NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006507NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006546NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG007292NIH HHS R01 HG006600NIH HHS U01 HG006484NIH HHS U01 HG006507NIH HHS U01 HG006546NIH HHS U01 HG007307NIH HHS UL1 TR000040NIH HHS UM1HG007292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent medical practice includes the application of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical and research settings. Despite expanded use of this technology, the process of disclosure of genomic results to patients and research participants has not been thoroughly examined and there are no established best practices.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 genetic and non-genetic clinicians returning results of GS as part of the NIH funded Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium projects. Interviews focused on the logistics of sessions, participant/patient reactions and factors influencing them, how the sessions changed with experience, and resources and training recommended to return genomic results.

resultsThe length of preparation and disclosure sessions varied depending on the type and number of results and their implications. Internal and external databases, online resources and result review meetings were used to prepare. Respondents reported that participants' reactions were variable and ranged from enthusiasm and relief to confusion and disappointment. Factors influencing reactions were types of results, expectations and health status. A recurrent challenge was managing inflated expectations about GS. Other challenges included returning multiple, unanticipated and/or uncertain results and navigating a rare diagnosis. Methods to address these challenges included traditional genetic counseling techniques and modifying practice over time in order to provide anticipatory guidance and modulate expectations. Respondents made recommendations to improve access to genomic resources and genetic referrals to prepare future providers as the uptake of GS increases in both genetic and non-genetic settings.

conclusionsThese findings indicate that returning genomic results is similar to return of results in traditional genetic testing but is magnified by the additional complexity and potential uncertainty of the results. Managing patient expectations, initially identified in studies of informed consent, remains an ongoing challenge and highlights the need to address this issue throughout the testing process. The results of this study will help to guide future providers in the disclosure of genomic results and highlight educational needs and resources necessary to prepare providers. Future research on the patient experience, understanding and follow-up of recommendations is needed to more fully understand the disclosure process.

Indexed as

Interviews as TopicWhole Genome SequencingHealth PersonnelHumansExome sequencingGenetic counselingGenomic resultsGenomic sequencingSecondary results

Identifiers

PMID29739461
PMCPMC5941324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.