PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Amy L McGuire

Publications and source records attributed to Amy L McGuire.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.

PURPOSE: Elective genomic sequencing (EGS) returns monogenic disease findings in multiple genes, including potentially novel variants, and may also provide participants with carrier status, pharmacogenomic and other health-related information. The PeopleSeq Study assessed participants' motivations for and concerns about EGS and the associated clinical and psychosocial outcomes across diverse EGS providers. METHODS: We administered a shared questionnaire to participants who chose to undergo EGS via 18 academic, clinical, or commercial EGS platforms. RESULTS: We enrolled 1575 participants, of whom 1147 (72.8%) completed a questionnaire after receiving their EGS results. A majority (60.3%) of the participants who completed a post-result questionnaire self-reported receiving results they assessed as important, including negative findings, and 75.9% reported a form of health-related utility. Among a subset (19.4%) who shared their EGS reports, 16.6% (37 of n = 223) received a monogenic finding and self-reported results deemed "important" were consistent with EGS reports. Most participants (74.1%) discussed their results with their family, but fewer discussed their results with a healthcare provider other than the site team (41.7%) or had one or more medical visits as a direct result of their EGS testing (23.1%). Participants expressed diverse motivations for EGS, with 91.4% expressing interest in their personal disease risk and 54% who expressed quasi-indication-based motivations related to family medical history. Individuals motivated by family history reported important results at a significantly higher rate. CONCLUSIONS: Early adopters of EGS are motivated by general interest in their health as well as quasi-indication-based considerations such as family history. A majority of participants learned results they considered medically important, but a much smaller segment engaged healthcare providers with their results.

Genomic testing↗
PubMed2024

Family genetic risk communication and reverse cascade testing in the BabySeq project.

PURPOSE: Genomic sequencing of newborns can initiate disease surveillance and therapy for children and may identify at-risk relatives through reverse cascade testing. We explored genetic risk communication and reverse cascade testing among families of newborns who underwent exome sequencing and were identified as having a risk for an autosomal dominant disease. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with parents of newborns enrolled in the BabySeq Project who had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant associated with an autosomal dominant childhood- and/or adult-onset disease returned. We used directed content analysis to derive themes. RESULTS: From 11 families, all first-degree relatives (n = 32, 100%), 29 second-degree relatives (76%), and 26 third-degree relatives (43%) were informed of their risk. All parents (n = 22, 69% of first-degree relatives), 4 (11%) second-degree relatives, and 1 (2%) third-degree relatives underwent cascade testing. Most parents preferred to handle risk communication themselves. Parents with positive cascade testing but no associated symptoms were less inclined to share findings with relatives but highly motivated to share results if the variant's associated disease severity was high, as perceived with adult-onset conditions. One new subtheme, family member traits, was identified and defined as a relative's propensity to anxiety/concern after risk communications but did not diminish risk communication. CONCLUSION: Findings can inform more effective notification and testing practices for families of newborns at risk for hereditary genetic conditions.

Humans↗
PubMed2005

Missed expectations? Physicians' views of patients' participation in medical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians are encouraged to actively involve patients in clinical decision-making, but this expectation has not been adequately examined from the physicians' perspective. Our objective was to identify and characterize physicians' attitudes toward patient participation in decision-making and to gain insight into how they consequently think about and structure the decision-making process. DESIGN: This was a qualitative cross-sectional study of physicians' reported attitudes and practices. SETTING: The study took place in private practice and academic physicians' practices. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 53 academic and private practice physicians from primary care and surgical specialties, ranging from first year residents to recently retired, participated in the study. MEASUREMENTS: We performed a qualitative analysis of semistructured individual interviews. RESULTS: The physicians in this study expressed consistently positive attitudes toward patient participation in medical decision-making. They identified patient autonomy as an essential justification for patient participation but often went beyond an autonomy-based rationale. Several were motivated by the fundamental principle of beneficence as well as their own self-interest in avoiding legal liability. Many physicians saw their role as an expert who educates the patient but retains control over the decision-making process; others took a more collaborative approach, encouraging patients to assume decisional priority. The decision-making process often was modified by patient, physician, and environmental factors. CONCLUSIONS: The physicians in this study demonstrated a positive, flexible approach toward including patients in decision-making. A one-dimensional model of shared decision-making based solely on the principle of autonomy fails to account for variability in how physicians allocate decisional priority and is therefore ethically inadequate.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed2004

A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent.

Enhancing patient choice is a central theme of medical ethics and law. Informed consent is the legal process used to promote patient autonomy; shared decision making is a widely promoted ethical approach. These processes may most usefully be seen as distinct in clinically and ethically important respects. The approach outlined in this article uses a model that arrays all medical decisions along 2 axes: risk and certainty. At the extremes of these continua, 4 decision types are produced, each of which constrains the principal actors in predictable ways. Shared decision making is most appropriate in situations of uncertainty, in which 2 or more clinically reasonable alternatives exist. When there is only 1 realistic choice, patient and physician may gather and exchange information; however, the patient cannot be empowered to make choices that do not exist. In contrast, informed consent does not require the presence of clinical choice; it is appropriate for all decisions of significant risk, even if there is only one option. When a clinical decision contains both risk and uncertainty, shared decision making and informed consent are both appropriate. For decisions of lower risk, consent should still be present, but it can be simple rather than informed. Clinicians may use this analysis as a guide to their own interactions with patients. In the continuing effort to provide patients with appropriate decisional authority over their own medical choices, shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent each has a distinct role to play.

Decision Making↗