TY - JOUR
T1 - Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing
T2 - Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis of a Conceptual Model to Inform Patient-Centered Instrument Development
AU - Smith, Hadley Stevens
AU - Morain, Stephanie R.
AU - Robinson, Jill Oliver
AU - Canfield, Isabel
AU - Malek, Janet
AU - Rubanovich, Caryn Kseniya
AU - Bloss, Cinnamon S.
AU - Ackerman, Sara L.
AU - Biesecker, Barbara
AU - Brothers, Kyle B.
AU - Goytia, Crispin N.
AU - Horowitz, Carol R.
AU - Knight, Sara J.
AU - Koenig, Barbara
AU - Kraft, Stephanie A.
AU - Outram, Simon
AU - Rini, Christine
AU - Shipman, Kelly J.
AU - Waltz, Margaret
AU - Wilfond, Benjamin
AU - McGuire, Amy L.
N1 - Funding Information:
The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium is funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) with co-funding from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), supported by U01HG006487 (UNC), U01HG007292 (KPNW), U01HG009610 (Mt Sinai), U01HG006485 (Baylor), U01HG009599 (UCSF), U01HG007301 (HudsonAlpha), and U24HG007307 (Coordinating Center). The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. More information about CSER can be found at https://cser-consortium.org/ . CKR was supported by a San Diego State University Graduate Fellowship. CB was supported by NHGRI R01HG008753 (Bloss PI).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - Background and Objectives: Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds. Methods: We took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback. Results: Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each. Conclusion: We present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.
AB - Background and Objectives: Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds. Methods: We took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback. Results: Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each. Conclusion: We present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117607210&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85117607210&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s40271-021-00558-4
DO - 10.1007/s40271-021-00558-4
M3 - Article
C2 - 34658003
AN - SCOPUS:85117607210
VL - 15
SP - 317
EP - 328
JO - Patient
JF - Patient
SN - 1178-1653
IS - 3
ER -