Finn Kelsey Stuttgen, Lynch John, Aufox Sharon, Bland Harris T., Chung Wendy, Halverson Colin, Hebbring Scott, Hoell Christin, Holm Ingrid, Jarvik Gail, Kullo Iftikhar, Leppig Kathleen, Myers Melanie, Prows Cynthia, Rasouly Hila Milo, Singh Rajbir, Weisner Georgia, Williams Janet, Wynn Julia, Smith Maureen, Sharp Richard
Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Am J Med Genet A. 2021 Feb;185(2):508-516. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.62002. Epub 2020 Dec 8.
Population-based genomic screening has the potential to improve health outcomes by identifying genetic causes of disease before they occur. While much attention has been paid to supporting the needs of the small percentage of patients who will receive a life-altering positive genomic screening result that requires medical attention, little attention has been given to the communication of negative screening results. As there are currently no best practices for returning negative genomic screening results, we drew on experiences across the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) III Network to highlight the diversity of reporting methods employed, challenges encountered in reporting negative test results, and "lessons learned" across institutions. A 60-item survey that consisted of both multiple choice and open-ended questions was created to gather data across institutions. Even though institutions independently developed procedures for reporting negative results, and had very different study populations, we identified several similarities of approach, including but not limited to: returning results by mail, placing results in the electronic health record via an automated process, reporting results to participants' primary care provider, and providing genetic counseling to interested patients at no cost. Differences in procedures for reporting negative results included: differences in terminology used to describe negative results, definitions of negative results, guidance regarding the meaning of negative results for participants and their family members, and recommendations for clinical follow up. Our findings highlight emerging practices for reporting negative genomic screening results and highlight the need to create patient education and clinical support tools for reporting negative screening results.
基于人群的基因组筛查有潜力通过在疾病发生前识别其遗传病因来改善健康状况。虽然人们已高度关注支持一小部分将获得改变人生的阳性基因组筛查结果且需要医疗关注的患者的需求,但对于阴性筛查结果的告知却很少有人关注。由于目前尚无反馈阴性基因组筛查结果的最佳做法,我们借鉴了电子病历与基因组学(eMERGE)III网络中的经验,以突出所采用报告方法的多样性、报告阴性检测结果时遇到的挑战以及各机构的“经验教训”。我们设计了一项包含多项选择题和开放式问题的60项调查问卷,以收集各机构的数据。尽管各机构独立制定了报告阴性结果的程序,且研究人群差异很大,但我们仍发现了一些方法上的相似之处,包括但不限于:通过邮件反馈结果、通过自动化流程将结果录入电子健康记录、向参与者的初级保健提供者报告结果以及为感兴趣的患者免费提供遗传咨询。报告阴性结果的程序差异包括:用于描述阴性结果的术语差异、阴性结果的定义、关于阴性结果对参与者及其家庭成员意义的指导以及临床随访建议。我们的研究结果突出了报告阴性基因组筛查结果的新兴做法,并强调需要创建用于报告阴性筛查结果的患者教育和临床支持工具。