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

被引:3
|
作者
Parobek, Christian M. [1 ]
Thorsen, Margaret M. [1 ]
Has, Phinnara [2 ]
Lorenzi, Paula [2 ]
Clark, Melissa A. [1 ,3 ]
Russo, Melissa L. [2 ]
Lewkowitz, Adam K. [2 ]
机构
[1] Brown Univ, Women & Infants Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Providence, RI USA
[2] Brown Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Women & Infants Hosp, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[3] Brown Univ, Dept Hlth Serv Policy & Practice, Sch Publ Hlth, Providence, RI USA
关键词
aneuploidy screening; confidentiality; data use; deidentification; fetal genetics; genetic counseling; medical ethics; prenatal care; protected health information; reidentification; KNOWLEDGE; ATTITUDES; CONSENT; BROAD;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.047
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
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% (a=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.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Video Education About Genetic Privacy and Patient Perspectives About Sharing Prenatal Genetic Data: A Randomized Trial
    Parobek, Christian M.
    Thorsen, Margaret M.
    Has, Phinnara
    Lorenzi, Paula
    Clark, Melissa A.
    Russo, Melissa L.
    Lewkowitz, Adam K.
    [J]. OBSTETRICAL & GYNECOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2023, 78 (01) : 14 - 16
  • [2] Mobile health education and patient perspectives on sharing prenatal genetic data: a randomized trial
    Parobek, Christian M.
    Has, Phinnara
    Lorenzi, Paula
    Clark, Melissa A.
    Russo, Melissa L.
    Lewkowitz, Adam K.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 226 (01) : S60 - S60
  • [3] A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of Standardized Video Education on Prenatal Genetic Testing Choices: Uptake of Genetic Testing
    Stortz, Sharon K.
    Mulligan, Sheila
    Snipes, Marie
    Hippman, Catriona
    Shridhar, Nirupama Nini
    Stoll, Katie
    Lutgendorf, Monica A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2023, 40 (03) : 267 - 273
  • [4] Genetic Data Sharing and Privacy
    Marco D. Sorani
    John K. Yue
    Sourabh Sharma
    Geoffrey T. Manley
    Adam R. Ferguson
    Shelly R. Cooper
    Kristen Dams-O’Connor
    Wayne A. Gordon
    Hester F. Lingsma
    Andrew I. R. Maas
    David K. Menon
    Diane J. Morabito
    Pratik Mukherjee
    David O. Okonkwo
    Ava M. Puccio
    Alex B. Valadka
    Esther L. Yuh
    [J]. Neuroinformatics, 2015, 13 : 1 - 6
  • [5] Genetic Data Sharing and Privacy
    Sorani, Marco D.
    Yue, John K.
    Sharma, Sourabh
    Manley, Geoffrey T.
    Ferguson, Adam R.
    Cooper, Shelly R.
    Dams-O'Connor, Kristen
    Gordon, Wayne A.
    Lingsma, Hester F.
    Maas, Andrew I. R.
    Menon, David K.
    Morabito, Diane J.
    Mukherjee, Pratik
    Okonkwo, David O.
    Puccio, Ava M.
    Valadka, Alex B.
    Yuh, Esther L.
    [J]. NEUROINFORMATICS, 2015, 13 (01) : 1 - 6
  • [6] Randomized trial of a patient education tool about leiomyoma
    Pandya, Prerna R.
    Docken, Rebecka B.
    Sonn, Nicole O.
    Matthew, Dara P.
    Sung, Juliana
    Tsambarlis, Allison
    White, Paula
    Yang, Linda C.
    [J]. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2020, 103 (08) : 1568 - 1573
  • [7] Randomized trial of a patient education tool about leiomyoma
    Pandya, P. R.
    Docken, R. B.
    Matthew, D. P.
    Sonn, N. O.
    Sung, J.
    Tsambarlis, A.
    White, P.
    Yang, L. C.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 220 (03) : S719 - S719
  • [8] Patient Perceptions About Data Sharing & Privacy: Insights from ActionADE
    Small, Serena S.
    Peddie, David
    Ackerley, Christine
    Hohl, Corinne M.
    Balka, Ellen
    [J]. CONTEXT SENSITIVE HEALTH INFORMATICS: REDESIGNING HEALTHCARE WORK, 2017, 241 : 109 - 114
  • [9] Video patient education about systemic corticosteroids is more effective than verbal education: A randomized controlled trial
    Corienti, C.
    Cassidy, L.
    Chen, S. C.
    Stoff, B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY, 2014, 134 : S95 - S95
  • [10] Patient Perspectives on Sharing Deidentified Trial Data
    Jones, Christopher W.
    Roberts, Brian W.
    Platts-Mills, Timothy F.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 165 (10) : 748 - 749