Impact of a Patient-Facing Enhanced Genomic Results Report to Improve Understanding, Engagement, and Communication

Abstract“The objective of this study was to” test the effectiveness of an enhanced genomic report on patient-centered outcome domains including communication, engagement and satisfaction. “Study design utilized” a prospective, randomized, mixed-methods desctiptive study of a whole genome sequencing results report, GenomeCOMPASS™, that was accessed by providers through the electronic health record and by patients through the associated patient portal. “The study was set in” an integrated healthcare delivery system in central Pennsylvania. “Eighty-four” parents of 46 children with undiagnosed Intellectual Disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder and/or multiple congenital anomalies who had participated in a previous study offering whole genome sequencing for their affected child were invited to enroll. Fifty-two parents enrolled. Following a traditional genetics results informing visit, the study coordinator stratified families by diagnostic result and uninformative result and then randomized families within each group to an intervention arm to receive the GenomeCOMPASS™ report or to the usual care arm to receive a summary letter from the medical geneticist. A letter inviting enrollment included a baseline survey, which once returned, constituted enrollment. Surveys were administered at 3 months post-genetics visit. At 6 months, the usual care arm crossed over to receive the intervention and were administered an additional survey at 3 months. Qualitative interviews were conducted following survey completion to augment the survey data regarding the patient centered outcomes of interest. Patient reported outcomes including communication, engagement, empowerment and satisfaction. In the intervention arm, GenomeCOMPASS™ reports were released to 14 families (N = 28 parents) and of those 21 (75%) returned 3 month surveys. In the usual care arm, 12 families (N = 24 parents) received usual care summary letters and of those 20 (83%) returned 3 month surveys. At crossover, GenomeCOMPASS™ reports were released to 20 individuals and 15 (75%) returned 3 month surveys. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 5 individuals. Use of the GenomeCOMPASS™ report was reported by this small group of parents to improve communication with providers and non-health professionals such as educators and therapists and led to increased engagement and high satisfaction. Providers and others involved in the children’s care also endorsed the report’s effectiveness. Reports that addressed negative findings, i.e. uninformative results, were not found to be useful. Although the number of users was small, this study supports that customizable template reports may provide a useful and durable source of information that can support and enhance the information provided by genetics professionals in traditional face-to-face encounters. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (Record 2013–0594).

[1]  C. Condit Public attitudes and beliefs about genetics. , 2010, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[2]  Gil Alterovitz,et al.  SMART on FHIR Genomics: facilitating standardized clinico-genomic apps , 2015, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[3]  S. Mahon,et al.  The State of Genomic Health Care and Cancer Are We Going Two Steps Forward and One Step Backward? , 2011, Annual Review of Nursing Research.

[4]  Patricia Goodson,et al.  Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: A systematic review of the literature , 2003, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  John W. Creswell,et al.  A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research , 2014 .

[6]  Siamak Noorbaloochi,et al.  Validation of Screening Questions for Limited Health Literacy in a Large VA Outpatient Population , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[7]  Gillian D Sanders,et al.  Enabling health care decisionmaking through clinical decision support and knowledge management. , 2012, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[8]  Lynn Feldman,et al.  Enhancing genomic laboratory reports from the patients' view: A qualitative analysis , 2015, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[9]  M. Daly,et al.  Attitudes about genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. , 1994, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  Enhancing genomic laboratory reports: A qualitative analysis of provider review , 2016, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[11]  D. Cella,et al.  A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. , 2002, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[12]  P. Goodson,et al.  Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: a systematic review of the literature. , 2003 .

[13]  Deb Feldman-Stewart,et al.  Validation of a Decision Regret Scale , 2003, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  W W Holland,et al.  Validation of screening procedures. , 1971, British medical bulletin.

[15]  James W Dearing,et al.  Designing for diffusion: how can we increase uptake of cancer communication innovations? , 2010, Patient education and counseling.

[16]  W. Chung,et al.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[17]  Simon M. Lin,et al.  A Review on Genomics APIs , 2015, Computational and structural biotechnology journal.

[18]  Kensaku Kawamoto,et al.  Clinical decision support for genetically guided personalized medicine: a systematic review , 2013, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[19]  D. Seibert,et al.  Twenty questions in genetic medicine—an assessment of World Wide Web databases for genetics information at the point of care , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.

[20]  Mary E Duffy,et al.  Design and psychometric evaluation of the Psychological Adaptation to Genetic Information Scale. , 2005, Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

[21]  Lori L. DuBenske,et al.  Psychometric Evaluation of the Health Information Orientation Scale , 2009, Journal of health psychology.

[22]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[23]  Julie C. Sapp,et al.  Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children , 2014, Clinical genetics.

[24]  Meghan C Towne,et al.  Expectation versus Reality: The Impact of Utility on Emotional Outcomes after Returning Individualized Genetic Research Results in Pediatric Rare Disease Research, a Qualitative Interview Study , 2016, PloS one.

[25]  Kensaku Kawamoto Clinical Decision Support , 2013 .