Advertisement

Journal of Community Genetics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 305–314 | Cite as

“I would like to discuss it further with an expert”: a focus group study of Finnish adults’ perspectives on genetic secondary findings

  • M. Vornanen
  • K. Aktan-Collan
  • N. Hallowell
  • H. Konttinen
  • H. Kääriäinen
  • A. Haukkala
Original Article

Abstract

Lowered costs of genomic sequencing facilitate analyzing large segments of genetic data. Ethical debate has focused on whether and what kind of incidental or secondary findings (SFs) to report, and how to obtain valid informed consent. However, people’s support needs after receiving SFs have received less attention. We explored Finnish adults’ perspectives on reporting genetic SFs. In this qualitative study which included four focus group discussions (N = 23) we used four vignette letters, each reporting a genetic SF predisposing to a different disease: familial hypercholesterolemia, long QT syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Transcribed focus group discussions were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Major themes were immediate shock, dealing with worry and heightened risk, fear of being left alone to deal with SFs, disclosing to family, and identified support needs. Despite their willingness to receive SFs, participants were concerned about being left alone to deal with them. Empathetic expert support and timely access to preventive care were seen as essential to coping with shock and worry, and disclosing SFs to family. Discussion around SFs needs to concern not only which findings to report, but also how healthcare systems need to prepare for providing timely access to preventive care and support for individuals and families.

Keywords

Incidental findings Secondary findings Whole genome sequencing Public perspective Focus group Qualitative vignette study 

Notes

Funding information

This study was funded by the Academy of Finland (grant 275033 to AH). Funding source had no involvement in study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, in writing the report, or in decision to submit the article for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Marleena Vornanen, Katja Aktan-Collan, Nina Hallowell, Hanna Konttinen, and Ari Haukkala declare that they have no conflict of interest. Helena Kääriäinen works part time as Clinical Geneticist in Docrates Clinic (a private cancer clinic), and as a Clinical Consultant in Blueprint Genetics laboratory. Helena Kääriäinen has received (September 2016) an honorarium from Orion Pharma (a presentation in a Symposium for Gynaecologists; the topic was genetic testing).

Ethical approval

All procedures followed the Declaration of Helsinki ethical guidelines on research with human participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study. Study protocols were approved by the University of Helsinki Ethical Review Board in the Humanities and Social and Behavioural Sciences.

References

  1. Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Pylvänäinen K, Järvinen HJ, Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P, Rantanen E, Kääriäinen H, Mecklin J-P (2007) Direct contact in inviting high-risk members of hereditary colon cancer families to genetic counselling and DNA testing. J Med Genet 44:732–738CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Aktan-Collan K, Kääriäinen H, Järvinen H, Peltomäki P, Pylvänäinen K, Mecklin J-P, Haukkala A (2013) Psychosocial consequences of predictive genetic testing for lynch syndrome and associations to surveillance behaviour in a 7-year follow-up study. Familial Cancer 12:639–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aktan-Collan KI, Kääriäinen HA, Kolttola EM, Pylvänäinen K, Järvinen HJ, Haukkala AH, Mecklin J-P (2011) Sharing genetic risk with next generation: mutation-positive parents’ communication with their offspring in Lynch syndrome. Familial Cancer 10:43–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour R (2008) Doing focus groups. Sage, Newcastle Google Scholar
  5. Bollinger JM, Scott J, Dvoskin R, Kaufman D (2012) Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med 14:451–457CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K (2013) To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet 21:248–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Peeters H, Van Esch H, Dierickx K (2014) The communication of secondary variants: interviews with parents whose children have undergone array-CGH testing. Clin Genet 86:207–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Hanish A, Johnson VA, Shah LL, Simon CM, Williams JK (2013) ‘Information is information’: a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clin Genet 84:11–18CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, Hastings RJ, Fellmann F, Hodgson SV, Howard HC, Cambon-Thomsen A, Knoppers BM, Meijers-Heijboer H et al (2013) Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Eur J Hum Genet 21:S1–S5PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Facio FM, Eidem H, Fisher T, Brooks S, Linn A, Kaphingst KA, Biesecker LG, Biesecker BB (2013) Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study. Eur J Hum Genet 21:261–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fried TR (2016) Shared decision making—finding the sweet spot. N Engl J Med 374:104–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaff CL, Clarke AJ, Atkinson P, Sivell S, Elwyn G, Iredale R, Thornton H, Dundon J, Shaw C, Edwards A (2007) Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 15:999–1011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gourna EG (2016) A cross-national investigation of professionals’ attitudes regarding clinical sequencing and incidental findings. Department of Health SciencesGoogle Scholar
  15. Hallowell N, Foster C, Eeles R, Ardern-Jones A, Murday V, Watson M (2003) Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information. J Med Ethics 29:74–79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallowell N, Alsop K, Gleeson M, Crook A, Plunkett L, Bowtell D, Mitchell G (2013) The responses of research participants and their next of kin to receiving feedback of genetic test results following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study. Genet Med 15:458–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hallowell N, Hall A, Alberg C, Zimmern R (2015) Revealing the results of whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing in research and clinical investigations: some ethical issues. J Med Ethics 41:317–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Haukkala A, Kujala E, Alha P, Salomaa V, Koskinen S, Swan H, Kääriäinen H (2013) The return of unexpected research results in a biobank study and referral to health care for heritable long QT syndrome. Public Health Genomics 16:241–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, Chung WK, Eng C, Evans JP, Herman GE, Hufnagel SB, Klein TE, Korf BR, et al (2016) 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. Genet MedGoogle Scholar
  20. Knoppers BM, Ma’n HZ, Sénécal K (2015) Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 16:553–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lahti E (2013) Above and beyond perseverance: an exploration of sisuGoogle Scholar
  22. Lahtinen AM, Havulinna AS, Jula A, Salomaa V, Kontula K (2015) Prevalence and clinical correlates of familial hypercholesterolemia founder mutations in the general population. Atherosclerosis 238:64–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis KL, Hooker GW, Connors PD, Hyams TC, Wright MF, Caldwell S, Biesecker LG, and Biesecker BB (2016) Participant use and communication of findings from exome sequencing: a mixed methods study. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med GenetGoogle Scholar
  24. Lohn Z, Adam S, Birch PH, Friedman JM (2014) Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review. J Genet Couns 23:463–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Loud JT, Bremer RC, Mai PL, Peters JA, Giri N, Stewart DR, Greene MH, Alter BP, and Savage SA (2016) Research participant interest in primary, secondary, and incidental genomic findings. Genet MedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mackley MP, Fletcher B, Parker M, Watkins H, and Ormondroyd E (2016) Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Genet MedGoogle Scholar
  27. McBride KA, Hallowell N, Tattersall MH, Kirk J, Ballinger ML, Thomas DM, Mitchell G, Young M-A (2016) Timing and context: important considerations in the return of genetic results to research participants. J Community Genet 7:11–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Newson AJ, Leonard SJ, Hall A, Gaff CL (2016) Known unknowns: building an ethics of uncertainty into genomic medicine. BMC Med Genet 9:57Google Scholar
  29. van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Lodder LN, Duivenvoorden HJ, van Gool AR, Seynaeve C, van der Meer CA, Klijn JG, van Geel BN, Burger CW et al (2003) Long-term psychological impact of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation and prophylactic surgery: a 5-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol 21:3867–3874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ormondroyd E, Moynihan C, Watson M, Foster C, Davolls S, Ardern-Jones A, Eeles R (2007) Disclosure of genetics research results after the death of the patient participant: a qualitative study of the impact on relatives. J Genet Couns 16:527–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Persky S, Kaphingst KA, Condit CM, McBride CM (2007) Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review. Genet Med 9:727–738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Press N, Fishman JR, Koenig BA (2000) Collective fear, individualized risk: the social and cultural context of genetic testing forbreast cancer. Nurs Ethics 7:237–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Richards MPM, Ponder M, Pharoah P, Everest S, Mackay J (2003) Issues of consent and feedback in a genetic epidemiological study of women with breast cancer. J Med Ethics 29:93–96CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanderson SC, Linderman MD, Suckiel SA, Diaz GA, Zinberg RE, Ferryman K, Wasserstein M, Kasarskis A, and Schadt EE (2015) Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: baseline findings from the HealthSeq project. Eur J Hum GenetGoogle Scholar
  35. Sanderson SC, Linderman MD, Suckiel SA, Zinberg R, Wasserstein M, Kasarskis A, Diaz GA, Schadt EE (2017) Psychological and behavioural impact of returning personal results from whole-genome sequencing: the HealthSeq project. Eur J Hum Genet 25:280–292CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider K, Zelley K, Nichols KE, Garber J (1993) Li-Fraumeni syndrome. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Wallace SE, Amemiya A, Bean LJ, Bird TD, Ledbetter N, Mefford HC, Smith RJ et al (eds) GeneReviews(®). University of Washington, Seattle, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  37. Shkedi-Rafid S, Dheensa S, Crawford G, Fenwick A, and Lucassen A (2014) Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice. J Med Genet. jmedgenet–2014Google Scholar
  38. Vavolizza RD, Kalia I, Aaron KE, Silverstein LB, Barlevy D, Wasserman D, Walsh C, Marion RW, Dolan SM (2015) Disclosing genetic information to family members about inherited cardiac arrhythmias: an obligation or a choice? J Genet Couns 24:608–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolf SM (2013) Return of individual research results & incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 14:557CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright MF, Lewis KL, Fisher TC, Hooker GW, Emanuel TE, Biesecker LG, Biesecker BB (2014) Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing: genome results preferences. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet 16:442Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social ResearchUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Big Data Institute and the Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population HealthUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.Department of Food and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.National Institute for Health and WelfareHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations