Journal of Community Genetics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 267–273 | Cite as

Inclusion of diverse populations in genomic research and health services: Genomix workshop report

  • Savio S. Mathew
  • Julian Barwell
  • Nasaim Khan
  • Ella Lynch
  • Michael Parker
  • Nadeem Qureshi
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Inclusion of Diverse Populations In Genomics Research and Health Services: A Scientific and Health Equity Imperative

Abstract

Clinical genetic services and genomic research are rapidly developing but, historically, those with the greatest need are the least to benefit from these advances. This encompasses low-income communities, including those from ethnic minority and indigenous backgrounds. The “Genomix” workshop at the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) 2016 conference offered the opportunity to consider possible solutions for these disparities from the experiences of researchers and genetic healthcare practitioners working with underserved communities in the USA, UK and Australia. Evident from the workshop and corresponding literature is that a multi-faceted approach to engaging communities is essential. This needs to be complemented by redesigning healthcare systems that improves access and raises awareness of the needs of these communities. At a more strategic level, institutions involved in funding research, commissioning and redesigning genetic health services also need to be adequately represented by underserved populations with intrinsic mechanisms to disseminate good practice and monitor participation. Further, as genomic medicine is mainstreamed, educational programmes developed for clinicians should incorporate approaches to alleviate disparities in accessing genetic services and improving study participation.

Keywords

Disparities Genetic services Ethnic minorities Indigenous populations Genomic research 

Introduction

As genomic research enters its second decade after the completion of the International Human Genome Project, the research conducted still is not fully reflective of the diversity found in global populations. Underserved populations include both populations in low- and middle-income countries and low-income communities in high-income countries. Although some efforts have been made to address disparities, the former continues to receive little attention even though there are many compelling reasons to do so, e.g. achieving a greater understanding of genomic variation and reducing existing health inequalities (Christianson et al. 2013; Nippert 2013).

The latter includes minority and indigenous populations who have historically had poor access to genetic services. This has been seen both in general genetic services (Roberts et al. 1996; Khan et al. 2010) as well as in specialist cancer services (Allford et al. 2014). The poor access of African-American women to BRCA1 genetic testing is a particularly relevant exemplar (Armstrong et al. 2005; Levy et al. 2011). Further, the provision of genetic screening programmes may also be inadequately developed in these communities, e.g. a lack of pre- and post-test counselling in neonatal sickle cell screening (Hussein et al. 2015).

This article will focus on underserved populations in high-income countries in the context of the USA, UK and Australia and explore why recognising these disparities matter, indicate some reasons for their existence and based on a workshop at the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) conference in 2016, consider possible solutions for addressing them.

Why does this matter?

Tackling inequalities in genomic research and access to genomic medicine are important to enhance the scientific rigour of research conducted in genomics, to improve the utility and applicability of their findings to underserved communities and to understand the impact of access on health outcomes. Some diseases are more common in certain populations. This could be autosomal recessive diseases due to founder mutations, population carrier rate or consanguinity while other conditions may be more common but without a clear inheritance, e.g. prostate cancer in men of African descent (Metcalfe et al. 2008; Williams and Powell 2009; Chornokur et al. 2011; Farrell et al. 2013; Martin et al. 2013; Powell and Bollig-Fischer 2013). The disease burden among migrant populations too are constantly evolving and the impact of Westernisation and globalisation means that there are new healthcare challenges that could be addressed through studying genomic variation (Garduño-Diaz and Khokhar 2012; Dubé et al. 2015; Barlas et al. 2016).

However, there is a caveat: discussions with African American, Latino and White communities in the USA suggest that, although gene-environment interactions contribute to group differences in health outcomes, social conditions trigger group-level genetic differences and, in particular, contribute to poorer health outcomes among African Americans (Isler et al. 2013). A review by Via et al. also suggested that researchers have to be mindful of the correlation between genetic ancestry and socioeconomic and environmental factors that could underlie differences seen in the disparities between different ethnic groups (Via et al. 2009).

Nevertheless, a lack of access to clinical genetics by these communities or a lack of awareness of these issues among healthcare professionals may have an impact on genetic testing and research and is likely to skew our understanding of human disease and variation. This, in turn, could make interpretation of results more difficult (Carlson et al. 2013; Manrai et al. 2016; Petrovski and Goldstein 2016) and lead to poorer health outcomes in these communities (Modell et al. 2000; Susswein et al. 2008). This is evident in pharmacogenomic research where efficacy and side effects of certain drugs may be affected by genomic variation and ethnicity (Kaneko et al. 1999; Desta et al. 2004; Cohen et al. 2006; Hung et al. 2006). Moreover, in cancer research, disparities in cancer morbidity and mortality that adversely impact underserved groups may in part be ascribable to a failure to include diverse populations in biospecimen banks (Lawson et al. 2015).

However, all future research with underserved, particularly, minority and indigenous communities will have to overcome mistrust from historical malpractices (Gamble 1997; Corbie-Smith et al. 1999; Fairchild and Bayer 1999; Scharff et al. 2010; Boyer et al. 2011; Sheppard et al. 2013; George et al. 2014). This includes the Havasupai Diabetes Project where blood samples consented for an investigation into the high incidence of diabetes among the Havasupai tribe were used to investigate genetic causes of schizophrenia, inbreeding and population migration theories without the tribe’s consent (Mello and Wolf 2010; Pacheco et al. 2013). This mistrust has propagated within these communities and is ever present today. A survey of African-American premedical students suggested that these students have several concerns about genetic testing—including discrimination, privacy and eugenics. Surprisingly these concerns were increased, not lessened, by genetics education (Laskey et al. 2003).

The next section highlights solutions from a ESHG workshop to improve access of underserved groups to genetic services and research opportunity, particularly focusing on minority and indigenous communities.

Possible solutions

Community engagement

Critical to improving underserved communities’ access to genomic services and participation in genomic research is early community engagement. This involves working with communities to identify their needs and concerns. Strategies to address these could involve town hall meetings that are popular among African-American communities in the USA (Ansell et al. 2009; Fouad et al. 2010; Schoenfeld and Francis 2016) or more defined focus groups (Streicher et al. 2011; Walker et al. 2014). The work of the National Centre for Indigenous Genomics (NCIG) at the Australian National University (ANU) with Aboriginal communities is an excellent example of the latter where focus groups were used to recognise disparities, address past poor research practice and explore themes concerning culture, kinship and genes, and the language of inheritance (Callaway 2016).

Focus studies conducted among African American and Latina/Latinos in the USA also identified communication strategies as a key tool to reduce barriers. This includes reducing language barriers, increasing dispersion of information via a variety of channels and engaging representatives from the communities of interest (Schulz et al. 2003). As such, multi-faceted channels of communication facilitated by community leaders, faith leaders and patient champions could also be used to engage with these underserved communities and build trust (Yancey et al. 2006). The most successful of these strategies seem to be directed by the communities themselves, e.g. videos produced by the Aboriginal communities with the NCIG and written material produced for the British Pakistani community in East Lancashire, UK. These efforts can also be reinforced by the use of role models or celebrities that can have a major impact on healthcare behaviour (Evans et al. 2014).

Another example of community engagement is the outreach work in Leicester, UK. For many years the Leicester Genetics Education Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (GENIE) has developed a reputation in community education outreach, from teaching DNA fingerprinting and promoting mental health awareness in schools to explaining how the remains of Richard III were identified through mitochondrial inheritance techniques (King et al. 2014). This led to the inception of the ‘Supporting Families with Cancer’ project with Macmillan Cancer Support which resulted in additional outreach events, stakeholder projects, primary care triage projects and developing the world’s first YouTube channel for clinical genetics (Lakhani et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2016). The clear message from these projects was that patients felt that supporting general practitioners in the community make effective referrals into specialist services was a key principle to accessing good care.

Redesign healthcare systems

Beyond community engagement, it is important to offer tangible improvements to healthcare systems. This includes strategies to communicate with patients from linguistically diverse backgrounds. This is demonstrated in Victoria, Australia, where nearly a quarter of its population speak 260 languages other than English at home. Victoria’s population is diverse and rapidly changing with 46.8% born overseas or having at least one parent born overseas and where the overseas-born population continues to steadily rise (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011).

The Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance was a whole system approach to genomics driven by ten leading healthcare and research organisations in Victoria who came together to advance their joint interest in bringing genomics into healthcare. In 2013, the seven founding members funded a collaborative and shared Demonstration project where patients with five diverse genetic conditions received genomic sequencing in parallel with standard care (Gaff et al. 2017). The major aim of the project was to understand patient experiences of having genomic sequencing and their preferences for this type of testing in the future—using surveys as the mode of data collection. Patients were recruited based on their condition; therefore, challenges were not related to testing access but around gaining feedback from these participants on their motivations, concerns, preferences and understanding of genomic testing.

It was evident from this project that the experiences and preferences of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) individuals will be important in determining the systemic changes that are required to overcome the challenges of embedding genomics into routine clinical practice. Preliminary data from the project demonstrated that 11% identified as English as a Second Language (ESL) with at least 18 separate first languages being spoken with little overlap. Although translation of the surveys into other languages was not deemed to be suitable due to the diversity of languages spoken, other strategies were implemented over the course of the project to increase survey participation from CALD individuals. These included exploring whether the survey could be completed with a family member, a trusted healthcare professional who can translate or over the telephone with a telephone interpreter. Melbourne Genomics now offers genomic sequencing to patients with 11 different conditions. Further consultations are being conducted with indigenous and CALD groups to determine if there are cultural sensitivities that require consideration when developing structures and policies regarding the management of genomic data. The Demonstration project clearly highlights the benefits of a whole system approach to genomics and particularly improving access to translators and language/culturally sensitive materials (Hussain-Gambles 2003) in engaging traditionally underserved communities.

Improving access using genetic outreach workers, simplifying referral processes and multi-agency partnerships will also complement such efforts (Khan et al. 2016). The work done in East Lancashire, UK, is a good example of the latter where a system approach to improving engagement with the British Pakistani community was undertaken by an innovative collaboration between primary care organisations (PCOs), commissioning groups, public health and the regional genetic services.

Approximately 30% of the population in East Lancashire is Muslim and of South Asian heritage. It has one of the highest child mortality rates in the country (Public Health England 2016) with 41% of the deaths in under 18-year-olds resulting from a chromosomal, congenital or genetic disorder. With up to 75% of British Pakistanis in the region being in a consanguineous marriage and with no indications of a decline in this practice, the need to engage with this community was identified.

However, traditionally, uptake among these families has been poor as the utility of this service is not recognised (Khan et al. 2010). As such, a multi-stranded approach that included investments at the community level, alongside genetic service enhancement and training of healthcare professionals, was employed that has proven to be more effective than single stranded approaches. A key to the success of this approach has been the provision of enhanced genetic advice which included no language barriers, an understanding of, and sensitivity towards, the cultural context in which decisions are being made including gender, religion and cultural complexities. Healthcare inequalities have been reduced in East Lancashire through this collaborative approach. Families are presenting for information/support who had not previously attended clinics.

Strategic level changes

Ensuring that underserved populations are involved in genetic and genomic projects currently relies on pockets of good practice by interested parties. To ensure that this is consolidated, sustained and rolled out to other groups will require fundamental institutional level changes (Popejoy and Fullerton 2016) such as the changes delivered by the Athena SWAN Charter for women in science. Under-representation of women in academia is an internationally recognised disparity that has persisted through time. This is particularly evident in academic medicine where just 28% of clinical academics in the UK are women. This disparity exacerbates with seniority as although women account for 42% of lecturers, only 18% are professors (Medical Schools Council 2015).

Amidst this background of gender inequality, the Athena SWAN Charter gender equality award scheme is one initiative that has made some inroads to tackle the prevailing disparity. The Charter established in 2005 by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) was instituted to encourage and recognise efforts to advance the careers of women in science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine (STEMM) (Caffrey et al. 2016). Since 2011, biomedical research units, biomedical research centres and patient safety translational research centres that apply for National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-approved grants are required to reach a certain level of compliance with a series of outcome measures for improving the number of, and opportunities for, female academics in their respective institutions. The Athena SWAN has had a positive impact in advancing gender equality and although there is limited evidence at present to attribute the Athena SWAN to the observed increase in women in academic medicine (Gregory-Smith 2015), it has raised awareness of gender inequality in the workplace and has brought about important structural and cultural changes to address gender inequality. A key to the success of this initiative may have been linking the Athena SWAN to government research funding (Ovseiko et al. 2017).

As such, similar initiatives may also be used to facilitate adequate representation of underserved populations in genomic research and as patient representatives at all levels, e.g. grant committees, ethics committees and research steering groups. Grant selection criteria, ethical approval and research progress reports should also include ongoing assessments of the representativeness of study populations. Moreover, patients from underserved communities and researchers with an interest in healthcare access equality need to actively participate in and apply lobbying pressures on commissioning groups to ensure that initiatives that address disparities are kept at the forefront of discussions on service design and research specification.

Further, clinicians serving underserved populations will need ongoing education on advances in genomic medicine and management approaches based on genetically determined variants (Feero and Green 2011; Radice et al. 2011). Although understanding which genomic variants are medically actionable beyond standard phenotypic information will require ongoing efforts to improve patient participation from diverse backgrounds, educational strategies to reduce inequalities in access as well as developing an understanding of cultural factors in minority communities should be pursued.

Research databases should also be sufficiently powered with participants from ethnic minority groups and other underserved communities to draw meaningful conclusions (Chow-White and Duster 2011; Lawson et al. 2015). This applies to studies such as the UK 100,000-genome project with its aims to develop a matched genomic variant and clinical phenotype anonymised data set in an agreed, standardised and unified format with longitudinal pulled through data sets to assist with national and international clinical research and commercially driven collaborations to improve our understanding of human variation and how this links to disease and influences healthcare outcomes given therapeutics interventions. This can also be enhanced through replication studies in other countries if these are widely accessible and in a readable and usable format. As society becomes increasingly diverse, this also includes embracing more objective measures of genetic makeup beyond traditional definitions of race and ethnicity (Mersha and Abebe 2015).

Finally, the coding of ethnic group status in referrals to genetic services and participation in genomic projects needs to be accurate so that healthcare outcomes and access to new technologies can be prospectively compared for the studied populations. This data is currently often incomplete and needs to be more routinely and systematically captured. Further, the success of strategies that address disparities also needs to be documented using practical metrics, for example, increase in appropriate referrals, increase uptake in the extended family and, in the case of reproductive genetic risk, reduced infant morbidity and mortality.

Conclusion

Inequality of access to new types of medical technologies through socioeconomic or ethnicity barriers is likely to accentuate healthcare disparities. There are moral, scientific and historic reasons why including underserved groups in genomic medicine projects and research is advisable to truly understand human genomic variation and improve healthcare outcomes. This will require multi-faceted culturally sensitive, educational and outreach-based approaches that simplify patient pathways and are underpinned by understanding the needs of, and working with, local communities.

With the drive towards personalised medicine, it is imperative that existing inequalities in genomic research and disparities between communities are addressed to prevent exacerbating them. Targeted education and outreach could help to engage minority communities and break down the barriers that hinder access to genetic services. However, the current definitions of race and ethnicity limit the ability to assess recruitment to genomic research and the time has come for medical research to embrace more objective measures of genetic makeup.

Recommendations

Community engagement

  1. I.

    Use multi-faceted channels of communication with the aid of patient champions, faith leaders and community leaders to engage with and educate underserved populations

     
  2. II.

    Enable general practitioners in the community to make effective referrals to specialist services

     

Redesign healthcare systems

  1. I.

    Improve access to translators and language/culturally sensitive material

     
  2. II.

    Use multi-stranded approaches in a multi-agency manner to engage with communities and advance joint interests

     

Strategic level changes

  1. I.

    Implement institutional changes in grant requests and service design and ensure there is adequate representation of underserved communities at all levels

     
  2. II.

    Provide ongoing education for clinicians serving underserved populations in advances in genomic medicine and strategies to tackle disparities in access and research participation among underserved communities

     
  3. III.

    Ensure databases are adequately powered by individuals from underserved communities

     
  4. IV.

    Complete ethnic minority coding in referrals and utilise practical metrics to document success of strategies

     

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sylvia Metcalfe, Emma Kowal, Vence Bonham and the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance for their contribution to the “Genomix” disparities workshop at ESHG 2016 conference which formed the basis of this paper. We are also grateful to Ming Lim for comments on manuscript and Genome England for sponsoring Naz Khan’s participation in the disparity workshop at ESHG 2016 conference.

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allford A, Qureshi N, Barwell J, Lewis C, Kai J (2014) What hinders minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services and what may help? Eur J Hum Genet 22(7):866–874. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.257 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell D, Grabler P, Whitman S, Ferrans C, Burgess-Bishop J, Murray LR, Rao R, Marcus E (2009) A community effort to reduce the black/white breast cancer mortality disparity in Chicago. Cancer Causes Control. Springer Netherlands 20(9):1681–1688. doi:10.1007/s10552-009-9419-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong K, Micco E, Carney A, Stopfer J, Putt M (2005) Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. JAMA Am Med Assoc 293(14):1729. doi:10.1001/jama.293.14.1729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) Census of population and housing Available at: www.abs.gov.au/census
  5. Barlas İÖ, Sezgin O, Dandara C, Türköz G, Yengel E, Cindi Z, Ankaralı H, Şardaş S (2016) Harnessing knowledge on very important pharmacogenes CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 variation for precision medicine in resource-limited global conflict zones. OMICS J Integ Biol 20(10):604–609. doi:10.1089/omi.2016.0133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyer BB, Dillard D, Woodahl EL, Whitener R, Thummel KE, Burke W (2011) Ethical issues in developing pharmacogenetic research partnerships with American Indigenous communities. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89(3):343–345. doi:10.1038/clpt.2010.303 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Caffrey L, Wyatt D, Fudge N, Mattingley H, Williamson C, McKevitt C (2016) Gender equity programmes in academic medicine: a realist evaluation approach to Athena SWAN processes. BMJ Open 6(9):e012090. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012090 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Callaway E (2016) Geneticists attempt to heal rifts with Aboriginal communities. Nature 537(7621):457–458. doi:10.1038/537457a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson CS, Matise TC, North KE, Haiman CA, Fesinmeyer MD, Buyske S, Schumacher FR, Peters U, Franceschini N, Ritchie MD, Duggan DJ, Spencer KL, Dumitrescu L, Eaton CB, Thomas F, Young A, Carty C, Heiss G, Le Marchand L, Crawford DC, Hindorff LA, Kooperberg CL, PAGE Consortium (2013) Generalization and dilution of association results from European GWAS in populations of non-European ancestry: the PAGE study. PLoS Biology. Edited by G. Gibson 11(9):e1001661. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001661 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Chornokur G, Dalton K, Borysova ME, Kumar NB (2011) Disparities at presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and survival in African American men, affected by prostate cancer. Prostate. NIH Public Access 71(9):985–997. doi:10.1002/pros.21314 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chow-White PA, Duster T (2011) Do health and forensic DNA databases increase racial disparities? PLoS Med. Public library of science 8(10):e1001100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001100 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Christianson A, Zimmern R, Kristoffersson U, Schmidtke J, Kent A, Raouf R, Barreiro C, Nippert I (2013) Health needs assessment for medical genetic services for congenital disorders in middle- and low-income nations. J Commun Genet 4(3):297–308. doi:10.1007/s12687-013-0150-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen JC, Boerwinkle E, Mosley TH, Hobbs HH (2006) Sequence variations in PCSK9, low LDL, and protection against coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 354(12):1264–1272. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa054013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S (1999) Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Int Med. Springer 14(9):537–546. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Desta, Z., Ward, B. A., Soukhova, N. V. and Flockhart, D. A. (2004) Comprehensive evaluation of tamoxifen sequential biotransformation by the human cytochrome P450 system in vitro: prominent roles for CYP3A and CYP2D6, J Pharmacol Exp Ther 310(3)Google Scholar
  16. Dubé JB, Wang J, Cao H, McIntyre AD, Johansen CT, Hopkins SE, Stringer R, Hosseinzadeh S, Kennedy BA, Ban MR, Young TK, Connelly PW, Dewailly E, Bjerregaard P, Boyer BB, Hegele RA (2015) Common Low-Density Lipoprotein Receptor p.G116S Variant Has a Large Effect on Plasma Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Circumpolar Inuit Populations. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 8:100–105. doi:10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.114.000646
  17. Evans DGR, Barwell J, Eccles DM, Collins A, Izatt L, Jacobs C, Donaldson A, Brady AF, Cuthbert A, Harrison R, Thomas S, Howell A, Miedzybrodzka Z, Murray A (2014) The Angelina Jolie effect: how high celebrity profile can have a major impact on provision of cancer related services. Breast Cancer Res 16(5):442. doi:10.1186/s13058-014-0442-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Fairchild AL, Bayer R (1999) Uses and abuses of Tuskegee. Science 284(5416)Google Scholar
  19. Farrell J, Petrovics G, McLeod DG, Srivastava S (2013) Genetic and molecular differences in prostate carcinogenesis between African American and Caucasian American men. Int J Mol Sci. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) 14(8):15510–15531. doi:10.3390/ijms140815510 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Feero WG, Green ED (2011) Genomics education for health care professionals in the 21st century. JAMA 306(9):989–990. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1245 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fouad MN, Partridge E, Dignan M, Holt C, Johnson R, Nagy C, Person S, Wynn T, Scarinci I (2010) Targeted intervention strategies to increase and maintain mammography utilization among African American women. Am J Pub Health. American Public Health Association 100(12):2526–2531. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.167312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaff CL, Winship IM, Forrest SM, Hansen DP, Clark J, Waring PM, South M, Sinclair AH (2017) Preparing for genomic medicine: a real world demonstration of health system change. npj Genomic Med 2(1):16. doi:10.1038/s41525-017-0017-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gamble, V. N. (1997) Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care., Am J Public Health. American Public Health Association 87(11):1773–8. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9366634 (Accessed: 25 February 2017)
  24. Garduño-Diaz SD, Khokhar S (2012) Prevalence, risk factors and complications associated with type 2 diabetes in migrant South Asians. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 28(1):6–24. doi:10.1002/dmrr.1219 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. George S, Duran N, Norris K (2014) A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Am J Pub Health. American Public Health Association 104(2):e16–e31. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gregory-Smith, I. (2015) The impact of Athena SWAN in UK medical schools, Sheffield economic research paper series. Available at: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.449704!/file/paper_2015010.pdf (Accessed: 17 June 2017)
  27. Hung S-I, Chung W-H, Jee S-H, Chen W-C, Chang Y-T, Lee W-R, Hu S-L, Wu M-T, Chen G-S, Wong T-W, Hsiao P-F, Chen W-H, Shih H-Y, Fang W-H, Wei C-Y, Lou Y-H, Huang Y-L, Lin J-J, Chen Y-T (2006) Genetic susceptibility to carbamazepine-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Pharmacogenet Genomics 16(4):297–306. doi:10.1097/01.fpc.0000199500.46842.4a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hussain-Gambles M (2003) Ethnic minority under-representation in clinical trials. J Health Org Manag 17(2):138–143. doi:10.1108/14777260310476177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hussein, N., Weng, S. F., Kai, J., Kleijnen, J. and Qureshi, N. (2015) Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, in Qureshi, N. (ed.) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, p. CD010849. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010849.pub2
  30. Isler, M. R., Sutton, K., Cadigan, R. J. and Corbie-Smith, G. (2013) Community perceptions of genomic research: implications for addressing health disparities., N C Med J. North Carolina Medical Society 74(6):470–6. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24316767 (Accessed: 21 February 2017)
  31. Jones GE, Singletary JH, Cashmore A, Jain V, Abhulimhen J, Chauhan J, Musson HV, Barwell JG (2016) Developing and assessing the utility of a You-Tube based clinical genetics video channel for families affected by inherited tumours. Familial Cancer. Springer Netherlands 15(2):351–355. doi:10.1007/s10689-016-9866-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaneko, A., Lum, J. K., Yaviong, L., Takahashi, N., Ishizaki, T., Bertilsson, L., Kobayakawa, T. and Björkman, A. (1999) High and variable frequencies of CYP2C19 mutations: medical consequences of poor drug metabolism in Vanuatu and other Pacific islands. Pharmacogenetics 9(5):581–90. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10591538 (Accessed: 24 February 2017)
  33. Khan N, Benson J, Macleod R, Kingston H (2010) Developing and evaluating a culturally appropriate genetic service for consanguineous South Asian families. J Commun Genet. Springer 1(2):73–81. doi:10.1007/s12687-010-0012-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Khan N, Kerr G, Kingston H (2016) Community engagement and education: addressing the needs of South Asian families with genetic disorders. J Commun Genet 7(4):317–323. doi:10.1007/s12687-016-0278-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. King TE, Fortes GG, Balaresque P, Thomas MG, Balding D, Delser PM, Neumann R, Parson W, Knapp M, Walsh S, Tonasso L, Holt J, Kayser M, Appleby J, Forster P, Ekserdjian D, Hofreiter M, Schürer K (2014) Identification of the remains of King Richard III. Nat Commun. Nature Publication Group 5:5631. doi:10.1038/ncomms6631 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Lakhani NS, Weir J, Allford A, Kai J, Barwell JG (2013) Could triaging family history of cancer during palliative care enable earlier genetic counseling intervention? J Palliat Med. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 16(11):1350–1355. doi:10.1089/jpm.2012.0583 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Laskey SL, Williams J, Pierre-Louis J, O’Riordan M, Matthews A, Robin NH (2003) Attitudes of African American premedical students toward genetic testing and screening. Gene Med 5(1):49–54. doi:10.1097/00125817-200301000-00008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lawson FP, Folawiyo O, Pirini F, Valle BL, Sidransky D, Ford J, Erby L, Guerrero-Preston R (2015) Abstract A28: enrolling African Americans into a cancer-related biobank. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers 24(10 Supplement)Google Scholar
  39. Levy DE, Byfield SD, Comstock CB, Garber JE, Syngal S, Crown WH, Shields AE (2011) Underutilization of BRCA1/2 testing to guide breast cancer treatment: Black and Hispanic women particularly at risk. Genet Med 13(4):349–355. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182091ba4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Manrai AK, Funke BH, Rehm HL, Olesen MS, Maron BA, Szolovits P, Margulies DM, Loscalzo J, Kohane IS (2016) Genetic misdiagnoses and the potential for health disparities. N Engl J Med 375(7):655–665. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1507092 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Martin DN, Starks AM, Ambs S (2013) Biological determinants of health disparities in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 25(3):1. doi:10.1097/CCO.0b013e32835eb5d1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Medical Schools Council (2015) A survey of staffing levels of medical clinical academics in UK medical schools as at 31 July 2014 Available at: http://www.medschools.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/MSC-survey-2015-web.pdf (Accessed: 17 June 2017)
  43. Mello MM, Wolf LE (2010) The Havasupai Indian tribe case—lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. N Engl J Med. Massachusetts Medical Society 363(3):204–207. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1005203 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Mersha TB, Abebe T (2015) Self-reported race/ethnicity in the age of genomic research: its potential impact on understanding health disparities. Hum Genomics 9(1):1. doi:10.1186/s40246-014-0023-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Metcalfe C, Evans S, Ibrahim F, Patel B, Anson K, Chinegwundoh F, Corbishley C, Gillatt D, Kirby R, Muir G, Nargund V, Popert R, Persad R, Ben-Shlomo Y, PROCESS Study Group (2008) Pathways to diagnosis for Black men and White men found to have prostate cancer: the PROCESS cohort study. Br J Cancer 99(7):1040–1045. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604670 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Modell, B., Harris, R., Lane, B., Khan, M., Darlison, M., Petrou, M., Old, J., Layton, M. and Varnavides, L. (2000) Informed choice in genetic screening for thalassaemia during pregnancy: audit from a national confidential inquiry., BMJ (Clin Res ed.) 320(7231):337–41. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657326 (Accessed: 24 February 2017)
  47. Nippert I (2013) “CAPABILITY” and “Genetic testing in emerging economies” (GenTEE). J Commun Genet 4(3):293–296. doi:10.1007/s12687-013-0158-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ovseiko PV, Chapple A, Edmunds LD, Ziebland S (2017) Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science: an exploratory study of women’s and men’s perceptions. Health Res Pol Sys 15(1):12. doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0177-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pacheco CM, Daley SM, Brown T, Filippi M, Greiner KA, Daley CM (2013) Moving forward: breaking the cycle of mistrust between American Indians and researchers. Am J Pub Health. American Public Health Association 103(12):2152–2159. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Petrovski S, Goldstein DB (2016) Unequal representation of genetic variation across ancestry groups creates healthcare inequality in the application of precision medicine. Genome Biol 17(1):157. doi:10.1186/s13059-016-1016-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Popejoy AB, Fullerton SM (2016) Genomics is failing on diversity. Nature. NIH Public Access 538(7624):161–164. doi:10.1038/538161a CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Powell IJ, Bollig-Fischer A (2013) Minireview: the molecular and genomic basis for prostate cancer health disparities. Mol Endocrinol 27(6):879–891. doi:10.1210/me.2013-1039 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Public Health England (2016) Child Health Profile 2016- Lancashire Available at: http://www.chimat.org.uk/profiles/static
  54. Radice P, De Summa S, Caleca L, Tommasi S (2011) Unclassified variants in BRCA genes: guidelines for interpretation. Ann Oncol 22(suppl 1):i18–i23. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq661 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Roberts, A., Cullen, R. and Bundey, S. (1996) The representation of ethnic minorities at genetic clinics in Birmingham., J Med Genet 33(1):56–8. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8825050 (Accessed: 28 February 2017)
  56. Scharff DP, Mathews KJ, Jackson P, Hoffsuemmer J, Martin E, Edwards D (2010) More than Tuskegee: understanding mistrust about research participation. J Health Care Poor Underser. NIH Public Access 21(3):879–897. doi:10.1353/hpu.0.0323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schoenfeld ER, Francis LE (2016) Word on the street: engaging local leaders in a dialogue about prostate cancer among African Americans. Am J Men’s Health. NIH Public Access 10(5):377–388. doi:10.1177/1557988314566503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schulz A, Caldwell C, Foster S (2003) “What are they going to do with the information?” Latino/Latina and African American perspectives on the Human Genome Project. Health Educ Behav 30(2):151–169. doi:10.1177/1090198102251026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sheppard, V. B., Mays, D., LaVeist, T. and Tercyak, K. P. (2013) Medical mistrust influences black women’s level of engagement in BRCA 1/2 genetic counseling and testing., J Natl Med Assoc 105(1):17–22. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23862292 (Accessed: 25 February 2017)
  60. Streicher SA, Sanderson SC, Jabs EW, Diefenbach M, Smirnoff M, Peter I, Horowitz CR, Brenner B, Richardson LD (2011) Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: a focus group study. J Commun Genet 2(3):153–163. doi:10.1007/s12687-011-0052-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Susswein LR, Skrzynia C, Lange LA, Booker JK, Graham ML, Evans JP (2008) Increased uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among African American women with a recent diagnosis of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(1):32–36. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.10.6377 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Via M, Ziv E, Burchard EG (2009) Recent advances of genetic ancestry testing in biomedical research and direct to consumer testing. Clin Genet. NIH Public Access 76(3):225–235. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01263.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Walker, E. R., Nelson, C. R., Antoine-LaVigne, D., Thigpen, D. T., Puggal, M. A., Sarpong, D. E. and Smith, A. M. (2014) Research participants’ opinions on genetic research and reasons for participation: a Jackson Heart Study focus group analysis., Ethn Dis 24(3):290–7. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25065069 (Accessed: 27 February 2017)
  64. Williams, H. and Powell, I. J. (2009) Epidemiology, pathology, and genetics of prostate cancer among African Americans compared with other ethnicities. Methods Mol Biol (Clifton, N.J.), pp. 439–453. doi: 10.1007/978-1-60327-492-0_21
  65. Yancey AK, Ortega AN, Kumanyika SK (2006) Effective recruitment and retention of minority research participants. Annu Rev Public Health 27(1):1–28. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102113 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Savio S. Mathew
    • 1
  • Julian Barwell
    • 2
  • Nasaim Khan
    • 3
  • Ella Lynch
    • 4
  • Michael Parker
    • 5
  • Nadeem Qureshi
    • 6
  1. 1.University of Plymouth, Drake CircusPlymouthUK
  2. 2.Clinical Genetics Department, Leicester Royal InfirmaryLeicesterUK
  3. 3.Genomic medicine, St. Mary’s Hospital, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
  4. 4.Melbourne Genomics Health AllianceParkvilleAustralia
  5. 5.The Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population HealthOld Road Campus, University of OxfordOxfordUK
  6. 6.Division of Primary CareUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations