Browsing by Subject "Return of results"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Returning negative results from large-scale genomic screening: Experiences from the eMERGE III network
    (Wiley, 2021) Finn, Kelsey Stuttgen; Lynch, John; Aufox, Sharon; Bland, Sarah; 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; Medicine, School of Medicine
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?
    (MDPI, 2020-03) Halverson, Colin M. E.; Jones, Sarah H.; Novak, Laurie; Simpson, Christopher; Velez Edwards, Digna R.; Zhao, Sifang Kathy; Clayton, Ellen W.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Increasingly, patients without clinical indications are undergoing genomic tests. The purpose of this study was to assess their appreciation and comprehension of their test results and their clinicians’ reactions. We conducted 675 surveys with participants from the Vanderbilt Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) cohort. We interviewed 36 participants: 19 had received positive results, and 17 were self-identified racial minorities. Eleven clinicians who had patients who had participated in eMERGE were interviewed. A further 21 of these clinicians completed surveys. Participants spontaneously admitted to understanding little or none of the information returned to them from the eMERGE study. However, they simultaneously said that they generally found testing to be “helpful,” even when it did not inform their health care. Primary care physicians expressed discomfort in being asked to interpret the results for their patients and described it as an undue burden. Providing genetic testing to otherwise healthy patients raises a number of ethical issues that warrant serious consideration. Although our participants were enthusiastic about enrolling and receiving their results, they express a limited understanding of what the results mean for their health care. This fact, coupled the clinicians’ concern, urges greater caution when educating and enrolling participants in clinically non-indicated testing.