Video education about genetic privacy and patient perspectives about sharing prenatal genetic data: a randomized trial.

aneuploidy screening confidentiality data use deidentification fetal genetics genetic counseling medical ethics prenatal care protected health information reidentification

Journal

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1097-6868
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370476

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2022
Historique:
received: 10 12 2021
revised: 18 03 2022
accepted: 24 03 2022
pubmed: 31 3 2022
medline: 7 7 2022
entrez: 30 3 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Laboratories offering cell-free DNA often reserve the right to share prenatal genetic data for research or even commercial purposes, and obtain this permission on the patient consent form. Although it is known that nonpregnant patients are often reluctant to share their genetic data for research, pregnant patients' knowledge of, and opinions about, genetic data privacy are unknown. We investigated whether pregnant patients who had already undergone cell-free DNA screening were aware that genetic data derived from cell-free DNA may be shared for research. Furthermore, we examined whether pregnant patients exposed to video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act-a federal law that mandates workplace and health insurance protections against genetic discrimination-were more willing to share cell-free DNA-related genetic data for research than pregnant patients who were unexposed. In this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04420858), English-speaking patients with singleton pregnancies who underwent cell-free DNA and subsequently presented at 17 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks of gestation for a detailed anatomy scan were randomized 1:1 to a control or intervention group. Both groups viewed an infographic about cell-free DNA. In addition, the intervention group viewed an educational video about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The primary outcomes were knowledge about, and willingness to share, prenatal genetic data from cell-free DNA by commercial laboratories for nonclinical purposes, such as research. The secondary outcomes included knowledge about existing genetic privacy laws, knowledge about the potential for reidentification of anonymized genetic data, and acceptability of various use and sharing scenarios for prenatal genetic data. Eighty-one participants per group were required for 80% power to detect an increase in willingness to share data from 60% to 80% (α=0.05). A total of 747 pregnant patients were screened, and 213 patients were deemed eligible and approached for potential study participation. Of these patients, 163 (76.5%) consented and were randomized; one participant discontinued the intervention, and two participants were excluded from analysis after the intervention when it was discovered that they did not fulfill all eligibility criteria. Overall, 160 (75.1%) of those approached were included in the final analysis. Most patients in the control group (72 [90.0%]) and intervention (76 [97.4%]) group were either unsure about or incorrectly thought that cell-free DNA companies could not share prenatal genetic data for research. Participants in the intervention group were more likely to incorrectly believe that their prenatal genetic data would not be shared for nonclinical purposes than participants in the control group (28.8% in the control group vs 46.2% in the intervention; P=.03). However, video education did not increase participant willingness to share genetic data in multiple scenarios. Non-White participants were less willing than White participants to allow sharing of genetic data specifically for academic research (P<.001). Most participants were unaware that their prenatal genetic data may be used for nonclinical purposes. Pregnant patients who were educated about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act were not more willing to share genetic data than those who did not receive this education. Surprisingly, video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act led patients to falsely believe that their data would not be shared for research, and participants who identified as racial minorities were less willing to share genetic data. New strategies are needed to improve pregnant patients' understanding of genetic privacy.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Laboratories offering cell-free DNA often reserve the right to share prenatal genetic data for research or even commercial purposes, and obtain this permission on the patient consent form. Although it is known that nonpregnant patients are often reluctant to share their genetic data for research, pregnant patients' knowledge of, and opinions about, genetic data privacy are unknown.
OBJECTIVE
We investigated whether pregnant patients who had already undergone cell-free DNA screening were aware that genetic data derived from cell-free DNA may be shared for research. Furthermore, we examined whether pregnant patients exposed to video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act-a federal law that mandates workplace and health insurance protections against genetic discrimination-were more willing to share cell-free DNA-related genetic data for research than pregnant patients who were unexposed.
STUDY DESIGN
In this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04420858), English-speaking patients with singleton pregnancies who underwent cell-free DNA and subsequently presented at 17 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks of gestation for a detailed anatomy scan were randomized 1:1 to a control or intervention group. Both groups viewed an infographic about cell-free DNA. In addition, the intervention group viewed an educational video about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The primary outcomes were knowledge about, and willingness to share, prenatal genetic data from cell-free DNA by commercial laboratories for nonclinical purposes, such as research. The secondary outcomes included knowledge about existing genetic privacy laws, knowledge about the potential for reidentification of anonymized genetic data, and acceptability of various use and sharing scenarios for prenatal genetic data. Eighty-one participants per group were required for 80% power to detect an increase in willingness to share data from 60% to 80% (α=0.05).
RESULTS
A total of 747 pregnant patients were screened, and 213 patients were deemed eligible and approached for potential study participation. Of these patients, 163 (76.5%) consented and were randomized; one participant discontinued the intervention, and two participants were excluded from analysis after the intervention when it was discovered that they did not fulfill all eligibility criteria. Overall, 160 (75.1%) of those approached were included in the final analysis. Most patients in the control group (72 [90.0%]) and intervention (76 [97.4%]) group were either unsure about or incorrectly thought that cell-free DNA companies could not share prenatal genetic data for research. Participants in the intervention group were more likely to incorrectly believe that their prenatal genetic data would not be shared for nonclinical purposes than participants in the control group (28.8% in the control group vs 46.2% in the intervention; P=.03). However, video education did not increase participant willingness to share genetic data in multiple scenarios. Non-White participants were less willing than White participants to allow sharing of genetic data specifically for academic research (P<.001).
CONCLUSION
Most participants were unaware that their prenatal genetic data may be used for nonclinical purposes. Pregnant patients who were educated about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act were not more willing to share genetic data than those who did not receive this education. Surprisingly, video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act led patients to falsely believe that their data would not be shared for research, and participants who identified as racial minorities were less willing to share genetic data. New strategies are needed to improve pregnant patients' understanding of genetic privacy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35351406
pii: S0002-9378(22)00226-5
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.047
pmc: PMC9339213
mid: NIHMS1823005
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Cell-Free Nucleic Acids 0

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04420858']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

87.e1-87.e13

Subventions

Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : K23 HD103961
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

J Community Genet. 2017 Oct;8(4):293-301
pubmed: 28868574
Semin Perinatol. 2016 Feb;40(1):29-34
pubmed: 26718446
JAMA. 2016 Aug 16;316(7):734-42
pubmed: 27533158
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep;225(3):341-342
pubmed: 34051169
Genet Med. 2021 Sep;23(9):1746-1752
pubmed: 34012070
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Mar;40(4):398-407
pubmed: 31499588
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Mar;129(3):e41-e55
pubmed: 28225426
Genet Med. 2016 Jul;18(7):663-71
pubmed: 26583683
Biopreserv Biobank. 2015 Apr;13(2):98-106
pubmed: 25825819
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Dec;120(6):1532-4
pubmed: 23168792
J Genet Couns. 2018 Feb;27(1):16-20
pubmed: 29052810
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Prenat Diagn. 2018 Feb;38(3):160-165
pubmed: 29417608
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Aug;35(8):748-53
pubmed: 25846645
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun 1;137(6):1074-1079
pubmed: 33957653
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Oct;21(e2):e320-5
pubmed: 24737606
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Mar;129(3):595-596
pubmed: 28225420
Genet Med. 2014 Jan;16(1):78-84
pubmed: 23743552
Prenat Diagn. 2021 Jan;41(1):100-110
pubmed: 33058217
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 31;13(10):e0204417
pubmed: 30379944
J Genet Couns. 2016 Feb;25(1):73-8
pubmed: 25925607
Prenat Diagn. 2021 Sep;41(10):1316-1323
pubmed: 33829520
Genet Med. 2019 Apr;21(4):790-797
pubmed: 30245516
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 May;37(5):780-785
pubmed: 29733732
J Perinatol. 2017 Jul;37(7):772-777
pubmed: 28492524
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Am J Hum Genet. 2017 Mar 2;100(3):414-427
pubmed: 28190457
Genet Med. 2005 Nov-Dec;7(9):605-10
pubmed: 16301861

Auteurs

Christian M Parobek (CM)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI.

Margaret M Thorsen (MM)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI.

Phinnara Has (P)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI.

Paula Lorenzi (P)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI.

Melissa A Clark (MA)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI; Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI.

Melissa L Russo (ML)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI.

Adam K Lewkowitz (AK)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI. Electronic address: alewkowitz@kentri.org.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH