PubMed HealthSearch

Biomedical subjects

Hadley Stevens Smith

Publications and source records attributed to Hadley Stevens Smith.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

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

Payer perspectives on genomic testing in the United States: A systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: Health care stakeholders' perspectives on the value of genomic testing vary widely and directly affect the access and practice of genomic medicine. To our knowledge, a review of US health care payers' perspectives on genomic testing has not been performed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of US payers' perspectives on genomic testing in the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Of the 161 nonduplicate records screened, we summarized findings from 20 included records, and using the framework method, common domains were recorded. RESULTS: Domains included clinical utility, coverage decision frameworks, potential harms, costs, paying for research, demand/pressure, the flexibility of outcomes considered, and personal utility. There was consensus on the definition of clinical utility as improved health outcomes, and the nuances of genomic testing were reported as challenging to fit within existing coverage decision frameworks. Perspectives varied on accepting broader outcomes or uses of genomic testing and whether costs influence coverage decisions. Study methodologies were heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: A deeper understanding of how payers approach genomic testing may allow comparison with other stakeholders' perspectives and may identify challenges, opportunities, and solutions to align a conceptual and evidentiary framework better to demonstrate the value of genomic testing.

Humans