Genetic Researchers’ Use of and Interest in Research With Diverse Ancestral Groups

Author:

Jaffe Kaitlyn1,Greene Amanda K.2,Chen Luyun3,Ryan Kerry A.2,Krenz Chris2,Roberts J. Scott24,Zikmund-Fisher Brian J.245,McGuire Amy L.6,Thomas J. Denard2,Marsh Erica E.37,Spector-Bagdady Kayte237

Affiliation:

1. Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

2. Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor

3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor

4. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor

5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor

6. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas

7. Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Abstract

ImportanceGenetic researchers must have access to databases populated with data from diverse ancestral groups to ensure research is generalizable or targeted for historically excluded communities.ObjectiveTo determine genetic researchers’ interest in doing research with diverse ancestral populations, which database stewards offer adequate samples, and additional facilitators for use of diverse ancestral data.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study was conducted from June to December 2022 and was part of an exploratory sequential mixed-methods project in which previous qualitative results informed survey design. Eligible participants included genetic researchers who held US academic affiliations and conducted research using human genetic databases.ExposureInternet-administered survey to genetic research professionals.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe survey assessed respondents’ experience and interest in research with diverse ancestral data, perceptions of adequacy of diverse data across database stewards (ie, private, government, or consortia), and identified facilitators for encouraging use of diverse ancestral data. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and z tests were used to describe respondents’ perspectives and experiences.ResultsA total of 294 researchers (171 men [58.5%]; 121 women [41.2%]) were included in the study, resulting in a response rate of 20.4%. Across seniority level, 109 respondents (37.1%) were senior researchers, 85 (28.9%) were mid-level researchers, 71 (24.1%) were junior researchers, and 27 (9.2%) were trainees. Significantly more respondents worked with data from European ancestral populations (261 respondents [88.8%]) compared with any other ancestral population. Respondents who had not done research with Indigenous ancestral groups (210 respondents [71.4%]) were significantly more likely to report interest in doing so than not (121 respondents [41.2%] vs 89 respondents [30.3%]; P < .001). Respondents reported discrepancies in the adequacy of ancestral populations with significantly more reporting European samples as adequate across consortium (203 respondents [90.6%]), government (200 respondents [89.7%]), and private (42 respondents [80.8%]) databases, compared with any other ancestral population. There were no significant differences in reported adequacy of ancestral populations across database stewards. A majority of respondents without access to adequate diverse samples reported that increasing the ancestral diversity of existing databases (201 respondents [68.4%]) and increasing access to databases that are already diverse (166 respondents [56.5%]) would increase the likelihood of them using a more diverse sample.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of US genetic researchers, respondents reported existing databases only provide adequate ancestral samples for European populations, despite their interest in other ancestral populations. These findings suggest there are specific gaps in access to and composition of genetic databases, highlighting the urgent need to boost diversity in research samples to improve inclusivity in genetic research practices.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3