Stakeholder engagement in policy development: challenges and opportunities for human genomics

Along with rapid advances in human genomics, policies governing genomic data and clinical technologies have proliferated. Stakeholder engagement is widely lauded as an important methodology for improving clinical, scientific, and public health policy decision making. The purpose of this paper is to examine how stakeholder engagement is used to develop policies in genomics research and public health areas, as well as to identify future priorities for conducting evidence-based stakeholder engagements. We focus on exemplars in biobanking and newborn screening to illustrate a variety of current stakeholder engagement in policy-making efforts. Each setting provides an important context for examining the methods of obtaining and integrating informed stakeholder voices into the policy-making process. While many organizations have an interest in engaging stakeholders with regard to genomic policy issues, there is broad divergence with respect to the stakeholders involved, the purpose of engagements, when stakeholders are engaged during policy development, methods of engagement, and the outcomes reported. Stakeholder engagement in genomics policy development is still at a nascent stage. Several challenges of using stakeholder engagement as a tool for genomics policy development remain, and little evidence regarding how to best incorporate stakeholder feedback into policy-making processes is currently available.     

Conducting clinical genomics research during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from the CSER consortium experience

Clinical research studies have navigated many changes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to describe the pandemic′s impact on research operations in the context of a clinical genomics research consortium that aimed to enroll a majority of participants from underrepresented populations. We interviewed (July to November 2020) and surveyed (May to August 2021) representatives of six projects in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, which studies the implementation of genome sequencing in the clinical care of patients from populations that are underrepresented in genomics research or are medically underserved. Questions focused on COVID′s impact on participant recruitment, enrollment, and engagement, and the transition to teleresearch. Responses were combined and thematically analyzed. Projects described factors at the project, institutional, and community levels that affected their experiences. Project factors included the project′s progress at the pandemic′s onset, the urgency of in-person clinical care for the disease being studied, and the degree to which teleresearch procedures were already incorporated. Institutional and community factors included institutional guidance for research and clinical care and the burden of COVID on the local community. Overall, being responsive to community experiences and values was essential to how CSER navigated evolving challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Stakeholder assessment of the evidence for cancer genomic tests: insights from three case studies

PurposeInsufficient evidence on the net benefits and harms of genomic tests in real-world settings is a translational barrier for genomic medicine. Understanding stakeholders’ assessment of the current evidence base for clinical practice and coverage decisions should be a critical step in influencing research, policy, and practice.MethodsTwenty-two stakeholders participated in a workshop exploring the evidence of genomic tests for clinical and coverage decision making. Stakeholders completed a survey prior to and during the meeting. They also discussed if they would recommend for or against current clinical use of each test.ResultsAt baseline, the level of confidence in the clinical validity and clinical utility of each test varied, although the group expressed greater confidence for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation and Lynch syndrome testing than for Oncotype DX. Following the discussion, survey results reflected even less confidence for Oncotype DX and epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing, but not for Lynch syndrome testing. The majority of stakeholders would consider clinical use for all three tests, but under the conditions of additional research or a shared clinical decision–making approach.ConclusionStakeholder engagement in unbiased settings is necessary to understand various perspectives about evidentiary thresholds in genomic medicine. Participants recommended the use of various methods for evidence generation and synthesis.Genet Med advance online publication 5 April 2012.     

Successful recruitment and retention of diverse participants in a genomics clinical trial: a good invitation to a great party

PurposeAfrican ancestry (AA) individuals are inadequately included in translational genomics research, limiting generalizability of findings and benefits of genomic discoveries for populations already facing disproportionately poor health outcomes. We aimed to determine the impact of stakeholder-engaged strategies on recruitment and retention oF.A.A adult patients into a clinical trial testing them for renal risk variants nearly exclusive to AAs.MethodsOur academic–clinical–community team developed ten key strategies that recognize AAs' barriers and facilitators for participation. Using electronic health records (EHRs), we identified potentially eligible patients. Recruiters reached out through letters, phone calls, and at medical visits.ResultsOf 5481 AA patients reached, 51% were ineligible, 37% enrolled, 4% declined, 7% were undecided when enrollment finished. We retained 93% at 3-month and 88% at 12-month follow-up. Those enrolled are more likely female, seen at community sites, and reached through active strategies, than those who declined. Those retained are more likely female, health-literate, and older. While many patients have low income, low clinician trust, and perceive racism in health care, none of these attributes correlate with retention.ConclusionWith robust stakeholder engagement, recruiters from patients’ communities, and active approaches, we successfully recruited and retained AA patients into a genomic clinical trial.     

Committing to genomic answers for all kids: Evaluating inequity in genomic research enrollment

PurposePersistent inequities in genomic medicine and research contribute to health disparities. This analysis uses a context-specific and equity-focused strategy to evaluate enrollment patterns for Genomic Answers for Kids (GA4K), a large, metropolitan-wide genomic study on children.MethodsElectronic health records for 2247 GA4K study participants were used to evaluate the distribution of individuals by demographics (race, ethnicity, and payor type) and location (residential address). Addresses were geocoded to produce point density and 3-digit zip code maps showing local and regional enrollment patterns. Health system reports and census data were used to compare participant characteristics with reference populations at different spatial scales.ResultsRacial and ethnic minoritized and populations with low-income were underrepresented in the GA4K study cohort. Geographic variation demonstrates inequity in enrollment and participation among children from historically segregated and socially disadvantaged communities.ConclusionOur findings illustrate inequity in enrollment related to both GA4K study design and structural inequalities, which we suspect may exist for similar US-based studies. Our methods provide a scalable framework for continually evaluating and improving study design to ensure equitable participation in and benefits from genomic research and medicine. The use of high-resolution, place-based data represents a novel and practical means of identifying and characterizing inequities and targeting community engagement.     

Stakeholder engagement: a key component of integrating genomic information into electronic health records

Integrating genomic information into clinical care and the electronic health record can facilitate personalized medicine through genetically guided clinical decision support. Stakeholder involvement is critical to the success of these implementation efforts. Prior work on implementation of clinical information systems provides broad guidance to inform effective engagement strategies. We add to this evidence-based recommendations that are specific to issues at the intersection of genomics and the electronic health record. We describe stakeholder engagement strategies employed by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network, a national consortium of US research institutions funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches that combine genomic and electronic health record data. Through select examples drawn from sites of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network, we illustrate a continuum of engagement strategies to inform genomic integration into commercial and homegrown electronic health records across a range of health-care settings. We frame engagement as activities to consult, involve, and partner with key stakeholder groups throughout specific phases of health information technology implementation. Our aim is to provide insights into engagement strategies to guide genomic integration based on our unique network experiences and lessons learned within the broader context of implementation research in biomedical informatics. On the basis of our collective experience, we describe key stakeholder practices, challenges, and considerations for successful genomic integration to support personalized medicine.Genet Med15 10, 792–801.     

Stakeholders’ views on the value of outcomes from clinical genetic and genomic interventions

PurposeRobust evidence about the value of clinical genomic interventions (CGIs), such as genetic/genomic testing or clinical genetic evaluation, is limited. We obtained stakeholders’ perspectives on outcomes from CGIs to help inform their value.MethodsWe used an adapted Delphi expert panel process. Two anonymous survey rounds assessed the value of 44 CGI outcomes and whether a third party should pay for them, with discussion in between rounds.ResultsSixty-six panelists responded to the first-round survey and 60 to the second. Policy-makers/payers gave the lowest ratings for value and researchers gave the highest. Patients/consumers had the most uncertainty about value and payment by a third party. Uncertainty about value was observed when evidence of proven health benefit was lacking, potential harms outweighed benefits for reproductive outcomes, and outcomes had only personal utility for individuals or family members. Agreement about outcomes for which a third party should not pay included prevention through surgery with unproven health benefits, establishing ancestry, parental consanguinity, and paternity.ConclusionResearch is needed to understand factors contributing to uncertainty and stakeholder differences about the value of CGI outcomes. Reaching consensus will accelerate the creation of metrics to generate the evidence needed to inform value and guide policies that promote availability, uptake, and coverage of CGIs.     

Building the evidence base for decision making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research

The clinical utility is uncertain for many cancer genomic applications. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can provide evidence to clarify this uncertainty. The aim of this study was to identify approaches to help stakeholders make evidence-based decisions and to describe potential challenges and opportunities in using CER to produce evidence-based guidance. We identified general CER approaches for genomic applications through literature review, the authors’ experiences, and lessons learned from a recent, seven-site CER initiative in cancer genomic medicine. Case studies illustrate the use of CER approaches. Evidence generation and synthesis approaches used in CER include comparative observational and randomized trials, patient-reported outcomes, decision modeling, and economic analysis. Significant challenges to conducting CER in cancer genomics include the rapid pace of innovation, lack of regulation, and variable definitions and evidence thresholds for clinical and personal utility. Opportunities to capitalize on CER methods in cancer genomics include improvements in the conduct of evidence synthesis, stakeholder engagement, increasing the number of comparative studies, and developing approaches to inform clinical guidelines and research prioritization. CER offers a variety of methodological approaches that can address stakeholders’ needs and help ensure an effective translation of genomic discoveries.Genet Med advance online publication 19 April 2012     

Integrating stakeholder feedback in translational genomics research: an ethnographic analysis of a study protocol’s evolution

PurposeThis study describes challenges faced while incorporating sometimes conflicting stakeholder feedback into study design and development of patient-facing materials for a translational genomics study aiming to reduce health disparities among diverse populations.MethodsWe conducted an ethnographic analysis of study documents including summaries of patient advisory committee meetings and interviews, reflective field notes written by study team members, and correspondence with our institutional review board (IRB). Through this analysis, we identified cross-cutting challenges for incorporating stakeholder feedback into development of our recruitment, risk assessment, and informed consent processes and materials.ResultsOur analysis revealed three key challenges: (1) balancing precision and simplicity in the design of study materials, (2) providing clinical care within the research context, and (3) emphasizing potential study benefits versus risks and limitations.ConclusionsWhile involving patient stakeholders in study design and materials development can increase inclusivity and responsiveness to patient needs, patient feedback may conflict with that of content area experts on the research team and IRBs who are tasked with overseeing the research. Our analysis highlights the need for further empirical research about ethical challenges when incorporating patient feedback into study design, and for dialogue with genomic researchers and IRB representatives about these issues.     

Assessing optimism and pessimism about genomic medicine: Development of a genomic orientation scale

Efforts to characterize stakeholder attitudes about the implementation of genomic medicine would benefit from a validated instrument for measuring public views of the potential benefits and harms of genomic technologies, which would facilitate comparison across populations and clinical settings. We sought to develop a scale to evaluate attitudes about the future of genomic medicine. We developed a 21-item scale that examined the likelihood of various outcomes of genomic medicine. The scale was administered to participants in a genomic sequencing study. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted and bivariate correlations were calculated. The genomic orientation (GO) scale was completed by 2895 participants. A two-factor structure was identified, corresponding to an optimism subscale (16 items, α = 0.89) and a pessimism subscale (5 items, α = 0.63). Genomic optimism was positively associated with a perceived value of genetic test results, higher health literacy, and decreased decisional conflict about participation in a genomic research study. Genomic pessimism was associated with concerns about genetic testing, lower health literacy, and increased decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study. The GO scale is a promising tool for measuring both positive and negative views regarding the future of genomic medicine and deserves further validation.     

GUÍA: a digital platform to facilitate result disclosure in genetic counseling

PurposeUse of genomic sequencing is increasing at a pace that requires technological solutions to effectively meet the needs of a growing patient population. We developed GUÍA, a web-based application, to enhance the delivery of genomic results and related clinical information to patients and families.MethodsGUÍA development occurred in five overlapping phases: formative research, content development, stakeholder/community member input, user interface design, and web application development. Development was informed by formative qualitative research involving parents (N = 22) whose children underwent genomic testing. Participants enrolled in the NYCKidSeq pilot study (N = 18) completed structured feedback interviews post–result disclosure using GUÍA. Genetic specialists, researchers, patients, and community stakeholders provided their perspectives on GUÍA’s design to ensure technical, cultural, and literacy appropriateness.ResultsNYCKidSeq participants responded positively to the use of GUÍA to deliver their children’s results. All participants (N = 10) with previous experience with genetic testing felt GUÍA improved result disclosure, and 17 (94%) participants said the content was clear.ConclusionGUÍA communicates complex genomic information in an understandable and personalized manner. Initial piloting demonstrated GUÍA’s utility for families enrolled in the NYCKidSeq pilot study. Findings from the NYCKidSeq clinical trial will provide insight into GUÍA’s effectiveness in communicating results among diverse, multilingual populations.     

Assessing multilevel determinants of adoption and implementation of genomic medicine: an organizational mixed-methods approach

PurposeAdoption and implementation of evidence-based genetic and genomic medicine have been slow. We describe a methodology for identifying the influence of organizational factors on adoption and implementation of these services in health-care organizations.MethodsWe illustrate a three-component, mixed-methods health services research approach, including expert panels, qualitative interviews with key informants, and quantitative surveys completed by key informants.ResultsThis research approach yielded a baseline assessment of existing genetic health-care models in the Veterans Health Administration and identified organizational barriers to and facilitators of adoption. In aggregate, the panel and key informant strategies created a communication network of relevant organizational stakeholders and a detailed foundation of organizational knowledge from which to design tools and models for implementation-level genetic/genomic translation.ConclusionExpert panel and key informant strategies can be used to create a backdrop of stakeholder involvement and baseline organizational knowledge within which to plan translation research and to inform strategic planning and policies for adoption and implementation of genetic services in health-care organizations.Genet Med17 11, 919–926.     

Alaska Native genomic research: perspectives from Alaska Native leaders,federal staff,and biomedical researchers

Meaningful engagement of Alaska Native (AN) tribes and tribal health organizations is essential in the conduct of socially responsible and ethical research. As genomics becomes increasingly important to advancements in medicine, there is a risk that populations not meaningfully included in genomic research will not benefit from the outcomes of that research. AN people have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research; AN underrepresentation in genomics research is compounded by mistrust based on past abuses, concerns about privacy and data ownership, and cultural considerations specific to this type of research. Working together, the National Human Genome Research Institute and two Alaska Native health organizations, Southcentral Foundation and the Alaska Native Health Board, cosponsored a workshop in July 2018 to engage key stakeholders in discussion, strengthen relationships, and facilitate partnership and consideration of participation of AN people in community-driven biomedical and genomic research. AN priorities related to translation of genomics research to health and health care, return of genomic results, design of research studies, and data sharing were discussed. This report summarizes the perspectives that emerged from the dialogue and offers considerations for effective and socially responsible genomic research partnerships with AN communities.     

Qualitative study of system-level factors related to genomic implementation

PurposeResearch on genomic medicine integration has focused on applications at the individual level, with less attention paid to implementation within clinical settings. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify system-level factors that played a role in implementation of genomic medicine within Implementing GeNomics In PracTicE (IGNITE) Network projects.MethodsUp to four study personnel, including principal investigators and study coordinators from each of six IGNITE projects, were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide that asked interviewees to describe study site(s), progress at each site, and factors facilitating or impeding project implementation. Interviews were coded following CFIR inner-setting constructs.ResultsKey barriers included (1) limitations in integrating genomic data and clinical decision support tools into electronic health records, (2) physician reluctance toward genomic research participation and clinical implementation due to a limited evidence base, (3) inadequate reimbursement for genomic medicine, (4) communication among and between investigators and clinicians, and (5) lack of clinical and leadership engagement.ConclusionImplementation of genomic medicine is hindered by several system-level barriers to both research and practice. Addressing these barriers may serve as important facilitators for studying and implementing genomics in practice.     

Knowledge integration at the center of genomic medicine

Three articles in this issue of Genetics in Medicine describe examples of “knowledge integration,” involving methods for generating and synthesizing rapidly emerging information on health-related genomic technologies and engaging stakeholders around the evidence. Knowledge integration, the central process in translating genomic research, involves three closely related, iterative components: knowledge management, knowledge synthesis, and knowledge translation. Knowledge management is the ongoing process of obtaining, organizing, and displaying evolving evidence. For example, horizon scanning and “infoveillance” use emerging technologies to scan databases, registries, publications, and cyberspace for information on genomic applications. Knowledge synthesis is the process of conducting systematic reviews using a priori rules of evidence. For example, methods including meta-analysis, decision analysis, and modeling can be used to combine information from basic, clinical, and population research. Knowledge translation refers to stakeholder engagement and brokering to influence policy, guidelines and recommendations, as well as the research agenda to close knowledge gaps. The ultrarapid production of information requires adequate public and private resources for knowledge integration to support the evidence-based development of genomic medicine.Genet Med advance online publication 3 May 2012.     

The use of low-cost ruggedized Android tablets to augment in-service training of community health workers in Mukono,Uganda: perspectives and lessons learned from the field

BackgroundDespite potential for community health workers (CHWs) to effectively reduce morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa, they still face multiple barriers including access to on-going and refresher training. Digital technology offers a potential solution to improve the provision of ongoing training for CHWs.ObjectivesThis report shares participant insights and experiences following the implementation of a mobile health (mHealth) assisted Integrated Community Case Management (iCCM) refresher training programme for CHWs in Mukono, Uganda. We seek to document benefits and challenges of such an approach.MethodsCHWs were trained to recognize, treat and prevent childhood pneumonia via locally made videos preloaded onto low cost, ruggedized Android tablets. Subsequent interviews were compiled with key stakeholders including CHWs, CHW leaders and programme supervisors to better understand the strengths, barriers and lessons learned following the intervention.ResultsSuccess factors included the establishment of CHW leadership structures, the ability to use the tablets to learn on an “any pace, any place” basis and using the tablets to conduct community teaching and outreach. Barriers included appropriate consideration of the implementation timeline and avoiding a “one size fits all” approach to digital literacy training.ConclusionsThe strength of the program stemmed from a grassroots approach that prioritized stakeholder input at all stages. Leadership at a local level, a history of local engagement and trust built up over a period time were also integral. As organizations aim to scale up digitally enhanced training initiatives, it is paramount that attention is paid to these human factors which are key for program success.     

Engaging populations underrepresented in research through novel approaches to consent

The lack of diversity of populations included in genomics databases is an important inhibitor of genomic discovery from bench to bedside. One way to increase the diversity of participants is to ensure that informed consent processes are designed for cultural and linguistic concordance for non-majority populations. This article describes two case studies of genomics research studies that are using novel approaches to informed consent to increase recruitment and retention of participants from traditionally underrepresented populations: The Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, part of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and the All of Us Research Program, part of the Precision Medicine Initiative. We conclude by proposing a community of practice among researchers seeking to improve informed consent to increase diversity in genomics research.     

Opportunities to implement a sustainable genomic medicine program: lessons learned from the IGNITE Network

PurposeWhile there is growing scientific evidence for and significant advances in the use of genomic technologies in medicine, there is a significant lag in the clinical adoption and sustainability of genomic medicine. Here we describe the findings from the National Human Genome Research Institute’s (NHGRI) Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) Network in identifying key constructs, opportunities, and challenges associated with driving sustainability of genomic medicine in clinical practice.MethodsNetwork members and affiliates were surveyed to identify key drivers associated with implementing and sustaining a genomic medicine program. Tallied results were used to develop and weigh key constructs/drivers required to support sustainability of genomic medicine programs.ResultsThe top three driver–stakeholder dyads were (1) genomic training for providers, (2) genomic clinical decision support (CDS) tools embedded in the electronic health record (EHR), and (3) third party reimbursement for genomic testing.ConclusionPriorities may differ depending on healthcare systems when comparing the current state of key drivers versus projected needs for supporting genomic medicine sustainability. Thus we provide gap-filling guidance based on IGNITE members’ experiences. Although results are limited to findings from the IGNITE network, their implementation, scientific, and clinical experience may be used as a road map by others considering implementing genomic medicine programs.     

Enhancing geneticists' perspectives of the public through community engagement

PurposeGiven the rapid pace of genetic and genomic research and technology development, public engagement on scientific issues may be mutually beneficial to the research community and the general public. The public may benefit from a greater understanding of concepts and new applications, and researchers can build awareness of public knowledge, perceptions, and potential concerns about genomic research and applications.MethodsWe developed and piloted a public engagement program called Genome Diner to facilitate dialog between genetic/genomic researchers (n = 40) and middle school students (n = 76) and their parents (n = 83) from the local community. Program impact was assessed through pre- and post-Diner surveys for each group.ResultsAfter participation in Genome Diner, researchers’ views were positively affected regarding the (adult) public’s level of understanding of genetic concepts, beliefs about relevance of research, and the importance of researcher–community interaction.ConclusionThrough an interactive discussion with students and parents, researchers gained valuable insight into public perspectives about genome research. The engagement format of the Genome Diner program presents a novel method of fostering trust and relationships between the two groups and to inform both the public and the researchers, whose work may depend on public opinion and participation.Genet Med 2012:14(2):243–249