Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Feb;21(2):409-416.
doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0061-1. Epub 2018 Jun 6.

Returning negative results to individuals in a genomic screening program: lessons learned

Rita M Butterfield  1 , James P Evans  2 , Christine Rini  3 , Kristine J Kuczynski  4 , Margaret Waltz  4 , R Jean Cadigan  4 , Katrina A B Goddard  5 , Kristin R Muessig  5 , Gail E Henderson  4
Affiliations

Returning negative results to individuals in a genomic screening program: lessons learned

Rita M Butterfield et al. Genet Med. 2019 Feb.

Abstract

Purpose: In genomics, the return of negative screening results for rare, medically actionable conditions in large unselected populations with low prior risk of disease is novel and may involve important and nuanced concerns for communicating their meaning. Recruitment may result in self-selection because of participants' personal or family history, changing the characteristics of the screened population and interpretation of both positive and negative findings; prior motivations may also affect responses to results.

Methods: Using data from GeneScreen, an exploratory adult screening project that targets 17 genes related to 11 medically actionable conditions, we address four questions: (1) Do participants self-select based on actual or perceived risk for one of the conditions? (2) Do participants understand negative results? (3) What are their psychosocial responses? (4) Are negative results related to changes in reported health-related behaviors?

Results: We found disproportionate enrollment of individuals at elevated prior risk for conditions being screened, and a need to improve communication about the nature of screening and meaning of negative screening results. Participants expressed no decision regret and did not report intention to change health-related behaviors.

Conclusion: This study illuminates critical challenges to overcome if genomic screening is to benefit the general population.

Keywords: Ethical, legal, and social issues; Genomic sequencing; Population screening; Returning results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Notification

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. France: Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968. [Accessed March 14, 2018]. Available at: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/medical_radiation_exposure/munich-....
    1. Lewis MA, Stine A, Paquin RS, et al. Parental preferences toward genomic sequencing for non-medically actionable conditions in children: a discrete-choice experiment. Genet Med. 2017 doi: 10.1038/gim.2017.93. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goldenberg AJ, Dodson DS, Davis MM, Tarini BA. Parents’ interest in whole-genome sequencing of newborns. Genet Med. 2014;16(1):78–84. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.76. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Foster MW, Mulvihill JJ, Sharp RR. Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genet Med. 2009;11(8):570–574. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181a2743e. - DOI - PubMed
    1. King M-C, Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A. Population-Based Screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2. JAMA. 2014;312(11):1091. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.12483. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types