Genomic Data in the Electronic Medical Record

Abstract

A proof of principle pharmacogenomic translational study was used as a case example to explore Biobank Community Advisory Board (CAB) member views about placing genomic information into the medical record and to establish how CAB input could affect research design. CAB members expressed enthusiasm for the potential benefit of the research discussed, yet voiced concerns regarding the recruitment and consent materials. They discussed the value of genomic research and its clinical utility; the risk of genetic discrimination; and personal ownership of genomic data. Members distinguished between indirect benefits to future generations and individual risk to research participants. Feedback was used to revise the recruitment and consent materials. Results highlight tensions reported between the public’s support for genomic research and concerns with genomic information in the medical record and its use in medical decision-making.

Keywords

genomics/genetics medical record community advisory board pharmacogenomics study

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beskow

L. M.

Dean

(2008). Informed consent for biorepositories: Assessing prospective participants’ understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 17, 1440-1451.

Bielinski

S. J.

Olson

J. E.

Pathak

Weinshilboum

R. M.

Wang

Lyke

K. J.

. . .Kullo

I. J.

(2014). Preemptive genotyping for personalized medicine: Design of the right drug, right dose, right time—Using genomic data to individualize treatment protocol. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 89, 25-33.

Biesecker

L. G.

(2012). Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel fenomic sequencing into clinical practice: Lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 393-398.

Biesecker

L. G.

Mullikin

J. C.

Facio

F. M.

Turner

Cherukuri

P. F.

Blakesley

R. W.

. . .Green

E. D.

(2009). The ClinSeq project: Piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine. Genome Research, 19, 1665-1674.

Bogner

H. R.

Wittink

M. N.

Merz

J. F.

Straton

J. B.

Cronholm

P. F.

Rabins

P. V.

Gallo

J. J.

(2004). Personal characteristics of older primary care patients who provide a buccal swab for apolipoprotein E testing and banking of genetic material: The spectrum study. Community Genetics, 7, 202-210.

Brunham

L. R.

Hayden

M. R.

(2012). Whole-genome sequencing: The new standard of care? Science, 336(6085), 1112-1113.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Drmanac

(2012). The ultimate genetic test. Science, 336(6085), 1110-1112.

Facio

F. M.

Brooks

Loewenstein

Green

Biesecker

L. G.

Biesecker

B. B.

(2011). Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: Implications for translational genomics research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 19, 1213-1217.

10.

Fullerton

S. M.

Wolf

W. A.

Brothers

K. B.

Clayton

E. W.

Crawford

D. C.

Denny

J. C.

. . .Jarvik

G. P.

(2012). Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: Experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 424-431.

11.

Godard

Marshall

Laberge

(2007). Community engagement in genetic research: Results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE project. Community Genetics, 10, 147-158.

12.

Gollust

S. E.

Gordon

E. S.

Zavac

Griffin

Christman

M. F.

Pyeritz

R. E.

. . .Bernhardt

B. A.

(2012). Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: Perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics, 15, 22-30.

13.

Haga

S. B.

Barry

W. T.

Mills

Ginsburg

G. S.

Svetkey

Sullivan

Willard

H. F.

(2013). Public knowledge and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, 17, 327-335.

14.

Harris

E. D.

Ziniel

S. I.

Amatruda

J. G.

Clinton

C. M.

Savage

S. K.

Taylor

P. L.

. . .Holm

I. A.

(2012). The beliefs, motivations, and expectations of parents who have enrolled their children in a genetic biorepository. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 330-337.

15.

Hartzler

McCarty

C. A.

Rasmussen

L. V.

William

M. S.

Brilliant

Bowton

E. A.

. . .Trinidad

S. B.

(2013). Stakeholder engagement: A key component of integrating genomic information into electronic health records. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 792-801.

16.

Hayden

E. C.

(2012). Sequencing set to alter clinical landscape. Nature, 482(7385), 288.

17.

Hull

S. C.

Sharp

R. R.

Botkin

J. R.

Brown

Hughes

Sugarman

. . .Wilfond

B. S.

(2008). Patients’ views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(10), 62-70.

18.

Kaufman

D. J.

Murphy-Bollinger

Scott

Hudson

K. L.

(2009). Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85, 643-654.

19.

Kettis-Lindblad

Ring

Viberth

Hansson

M. G.

(2006). Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? European Journal of Public Health, 16, 433-440.

20.

Lemke

A. A.

Wolf

W. A.

Hebert-Beirne

Smith

M. E.

(2010). Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics, 13, 368-377.

21.

Ludman

E. J.

Fullerton

S. M.

Spangler

Trinidad

S. B.

Fujii

M. M.

Jarvik

G. P.

. . .Burke

(2010). Glad you asked: Participants’ opinions of re-consent for dbGaP data submission. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(3), 9-16.

22.

Maher

(2011). Human genetics: Genomes on prescription. Nature, 478(7367), 22-24.

23.

McCarty

C. A.

Garber

Reeser

J. C.

Fost

N. C.

(2011). Study newsletters, community and ethics advisory boards, and focus group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155A, 737-741.

24.

McCarty

C. A.

Nair

Austin

D. M.

Giampietro

P. F.

(2007). Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project. Community Genetics, 10, 2-9.

25.

McCormick

J. B.

Hammer

R. R.

Farrell

R. M.

Geller

James

K. M.

Loftus

E. V.

Jr. . . .Sharp

R. R.

(2012). Experiences of patients with chronic gastrointestinal conditions: In their own words. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, Article 25. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-10-25

26.

McGuire

A. L.

Hamilton

J. A.

Lunstroth

McCullough

L. B.

Goldman

(2008). DNA data sharing: Research participants’ perspectives. Genetics in Medicine, 10, 46-53.

27.

Nvivo Qualitatitve Data Analysis Software. (2008). Version 8 [Computer software]. QSR International Pty Ltd. Doncaster, Victoria, Australia.

28.

Olson

J. E.

Ryu

Johnson

K. J.

Koenig

B. A.

Maschke

K. J.

Morrisette

J. A.

. . .Cerhan

J. R.

(2013). The Mayo Clinic Biobank: A building block for individualized medicine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88, 952-962.

29.

Ormond

K. E.

Cirino

A. L.

Helenowski

I. B.

Chisholm

R. L.

Wolf

W. A.

(2009). Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 149A, 188-198.

30.

Trinidad

S. B.

Fullerton

S. M.

Bares

J. M.

Jarvik

G. P.

Larson

E. B.

Burke

(2010). Genomic research and wide data sharing: Views of prospective participants. Genetics in Medicine, 12, 486-495.

31.

Wong

M. L.

Chia

K. S.

Yam

W. M.

Teodoro

G. R.

Lau

K. W.

(2004). Willingness to donate blood samples for genetic research: A survey from a community in Singapore. Clinical Genetics, 65, 45-51.