Clinical providers' experiences with returning results from genomic sequencing: an interview study
- PMID: 29739461
- PMCID: PMC5941324
- DOI: 10.1186/s12920-018-0360-z
Clinical providers' experiences with returning results from genomic sequencing: an interview study
Abstract
Background: Current 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.
Methods: We 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.
Results: The 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.
Conclusions: These 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.
Keywords: Exome sequencing; Genetic counseling; Genomic results; Genomic sequencing; Secondary results.
Conflict of interest statement
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Verbal informed consent was obtained at the start of each interview. A waiver of requirement for written documentation of consent was approved by the Institutional Review Board based on the research involving minimal risk.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Similar articles
-
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016. PMID: 27532314
-
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29372930 Free PMC article.
-
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11532236
-
Rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance: a qualitative evidence synthesis of recipient and provider views.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 26;4(4):CD014877. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014877.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 35470432 Free PMC article.
-
Community and hospital-based healthcare professionals perceptions of digital advance care planning for palliative and end-of-life care: a latent class analysis.Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Jun 25:1-22. doi: 10.3310/XCGE3294. Online ahead of print. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025. PMID: 40580081
Cited by
-
Using the diffusion of innovations model to guide participant engagement in the genomics era.J Genet Couns. 2019 Apr;28(2):419-427. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1090. Epub 2019 Jan 17. J Genet Couns. 2019. PMID: 30653790 Free PMC article.
-
Genetic Testing in Neurodevelopmental Disorders.Front Pediatr. 2021 Feb 19;9:526779. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.526779. eCollection 2021. Front Pediatr. 2021. PMID: 33681094 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Are providers prepared for genomic medicine: interpretation of Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) results and genetic self-efficacy by medical professionals.BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Nov 25;19(1):844. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4679-8. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019. PMID: 31760949 Free PMC article.
-
Choices, attitudes, and experiences of genetic screening in Latino/a and Ashkenazi Jewish individuals.J Community Genet. 2020 Oct;11(4):391-403. doi: 10.1007/s12687-020-00464-6. Epub 2020 May 7. J Community Genet. 2020. PMID: 32382939 Free PMC article.
-
Old Challenges or New Issues? Genetic Health Professionals' Experiences Obtaining Informed Consent in Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing.AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2021 Jan-Mar;12(1):12-23. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1823906. Epub 2020 Oct 5. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2021. PMID: 33017265 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Farwell KD, Shahmirzadi L, El-Khechen D, Powis Z, Chao EC, Davis BT, Baxter RM, Zeng W, Mroske C, Parra MC, et al. Enhanced utility of family-centered diagnostic exome sequencing with inheritance model-based analysis: results from 500 unselected families with undiagnosed genetic conditions. Genet. Med. 2014;17:587–595. - PubMed
-
- All of US. 2017. https://allofus.nih.gov/.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources