Abstract
Abstract
Background
Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which offer information about genomic risk for common diseases, have been proposed for clinical implementation. The ways in which PRS information may influence a patient’s health trajectory depend on how both the patient and their primary care provider (PCP) interpret and act on PRS information. We aimed to probe patient and PCP responses to PRS clinical reporting choices
Methods
Qualitative semi-structured interviews of both patients (N=25) and PCPs (N=21) exploring responses to mock PRS clinical reports of two different designs: binary and continuous representations of PRS.
Results
Many patients did not understand the numbers representing risk, with high numeracy patients being the exception. However, all the patients still understood a key takeaway that they should ask their PCP about actions to lower their disease risk. PCPs described a diverse range of heuristics they would use to interpret and act on PRS information. Three separate use cases for PRS emerged: to aid in gray-area clinical decision-making, to encourage patients to do what PCPs think patients should be doing anyway (such as exercising regularly), and to identify previously unrecognized high-risk patients. PCPs indicated that receiving “below average risk” information could be both beneficial and potentially harmful, depending on the use case. For “increased risk” patients, PCPs were favorable towards integrating PRS information into their practice, though some would only act in the presence of evidence-based guidelines. PCPs describe the report as more than a way to convey information, viewing it as something to structure the whole interaction with the patient. Both patients and PCPs preferred the continuous over the binary representation of PRS (23/25 and 17/21, respectively). We offer recommendations for the developers of PRS to consider for PRS clinical report design in the light of these patient and PCP viewpoints.
Conclusions
PCPs saw PRS information as a natural extension of their current practice. The most pressing gap for PRS implementation is evidence for clinical utility. Careful clinical report design can help ensure that benefits are realized and harms are minimized.
Funder
National Human Genome Research Institute
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Genetics (clinical),Genetics,Molecular Biology,Molecular Medicine
Reference51 articles.
1. Khera AV, Chaffin M, Aragam KG, Haas ME, Roselli C, Choi SH, et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat Genet. 2018;50(9):1219–24.
2. riskScore [Internet]. Myriad myRisk. Available from: https://myriadmyrisk.com/riskscore/. [Cited 2019 Dec 12].
3. 23andMe Offers New Genetic Report on Type 2 Diabetes [Internet]. 23andMe Blog. 2019. Available from: https://blog.23andme.com/health-traits/type-2-diabetes/. [Cited 2021 Apr 27].
4. RFA-HG-19-013: The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE): Genomic Risk Assessment and Management Network [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/rfa-hg-19-013.html. [Cited 2019 Aug 17].
5. Esserman LJ. The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate. Npj Breast Cancer. 2017;3(1):1–7.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献