Research Participants’ Preferences for Individual Results of Pharmacogenomics Research: A Case of a Ugandan HIV Research Institute

Abstract

Little is known about whether people living with HIV would like to receive their results from pharmacogenomics research. This study explored the factors influencing participants’ preferences and the reasons for their desire to receive individual results from pharmacogenomics research. We employed a convergent parallel mixed methods study design comprising a survey of 225 research participants and 5 deliberative focus group discussions with 30 purposively selected research participants. Almost all (98%) participants wanted to receive individual pharmacogenomics research results. Reasons for the desire to receive results were reciprocity for valuable time and effort, preparing for future eventualities, and the right to information about their health. Overall, participants desire to receive feedback from pharmacogenomics research, particularly if results are well established and clinically actionable.

Keywords

preferences pharmacogenomics research results participants HIV/AIDS

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amayoa

F. A.

Nakwagala

F. N.

Barugahare

Munabi

I. G.

Mwaka

E. S.

(2022). Understanding of critical elements of informed consent in genomic research: A case of a paediatric HIV-TB research project in Uganda. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 17(4), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221100430

Aminkeng

Ross

Rassekh

Brunham

Sistonen

Dube

Froment

A. J

. (2014). Higher frequency of genetic variants conferring increased risk for ADRs for commonly used drugs treating cancer, AIDS and tuberculosis in persons of African descent. The Pharmacogenomics Journal, 14(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1038/tpj.2013.13

Bennette

C. S.

Trinidad

S. B.

Fullerton

S. M.

Patrick

Amendola

Burke

Veenstra

D. L

. (2013). Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: Measuring what patients value—development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genetics in Medicine, 15(11), 873–881. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.63

Bollinger

J. M.

Green

R. C.

Kaufman

D. J. G. T

., & Biomarkers

. (2013). Attitudes about regulation among direct-to-consumer genetic testing customers. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, 17(5), 424–428. https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2012.0453

Bollinger

J. M.

Scott

Dvoskin

Kaufman

D. J.

(2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: Findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 451–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.66

Boyce

Walker

Duggal

Thio

C. L.

Geller

(2019). Personal genetic information about HIV: Research participants’ views of ethical, social, and behavioral implications. Public Health Genomics, 22(1–2), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1159/000501672

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burke

Antommaria

A. H. M.

Bennett

Botkin

Clayton

E. W.

Henderson

G. E.

Knoppers

B. M

. (2013). Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genetics in Medicine, 15(11), 854–859. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.113

Calcagno

Cusato

Sekaggya-Wiltshire

von Braun

Motta

Turyasingura

. (2019). The influence of pharmacogenetic variants in HIV/tuberculosis coinfected patients in Uganda in the SOUTH study. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 106(2), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1403

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage publications.

12.

Daack-Hirsch

Driessnack

Hanish

Johnson

V. A.

Shah

L. L.

Simon

C. M.

Williams

J. K

. (2013). ‘Information is information’: A public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clinical Genetics, 84(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12167

13.

Dandara

Masimirembwa

Haffani

Y. Z.

Ogutu

Mabuka

Aklillu

Bolaji

O. J. A. O. R.

(2019). African pharmacogenomics consortium: Consolidating pharmacogenomics knowledge, capacity development and translation in Africa. AAS Open Research, 2(19), 19. https://doi.org/10.12688/aasopenres.12965.1

14.

Eriksen

Carlander

Albert

Flamholc

Gisslén

Navér

Sönnerborg

. (2020). Antiretroviral treatment for HIV infection: Swedish recommendations 2019. Infectious Diseases, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2019.1707867

15.

Faure

M. C.

Matshabane

O. P.

Marshall

Appelbaum

P. S.

Stein

D. J.

Engel

M. E

. (2019). Does genetics matter for disease-related stigma? The impact of genetic attribution on stigma associated with rheumatic heart disease in the Western Cape, South Africa. Social Science & Medicine, 243, 112619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112619

16.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal Of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

17.

Fulda

K. G.

Lykens

(2006). Ethical issues in predictive genetic testing: A public health perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(3), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.010272

18.

Green

R. C.

Berg

J. S.

Grody

W. W.

Kalia

S. S.

Korf

B. R.

Martin

C. L.

Ormond

K. E

. (2013). ACMG Recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 15(7), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.73

19.

H3AfricaConsortium (2018). H3Africa Guideline for the Return of Individual Genetic Research Findings.

20.

Harris

Kelly

S. E.

Wyatt

. (2013). Counseling customers: Emerging roles for genetic counselors in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(2), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9548-0

21.

Hicks

J. K.

Shealy

Schreiber

Coleridge

Noss

Natowicz

. (2018). Patient decisions to receive secondary pharmacogenomic findings and development of a multidisciplinary practice model to integrate results into patient care. Clinical and Translational Science, 11(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12493

22.

International-Pty-Ltd

(2018). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 12) [Computer software].

23.

Jegede

A. S

. (2009). Culture and genetic screening in Africa. Developing World Bioethics, 9(3), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2009.00259.x

24.

Johansson

J. V.

Langenskiöld

Segerdahl

Hansson

M. G.

Hösterey

U. U.

Gummesson

Veldwijk

(2019). Research participants’ preferences for receiving genetic risk information: A discrete choice experiment. Genetics in Medicine, 21(10), 2381–2389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0511-4

25.

Kaphingst

K. A.

Ivanovich

Biesecker

B. B.

Dresser

Seo

Dressler

L. G.

Goodman

M. S

. (2016). Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age. Clinical Genetics, 89(3), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12597

26.

Kasule

., Matshaba

., Mwaka

., Wonkam

., & de Vries

. (2022). Considerations of autonomy in guiding decisions around the feedback of individual genetic research results from genomics research: Expectations of and preferences from researchers in Botswana. Global Health, Epidemiology and Genomics, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3245206

27.

Kisiangani

Mohamed

S. F.

Kyobutungi

Tindana

Ghansah

Ramsay

Asiki

(2022). Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00767-y

28.

Korol

Hurlimann

Godard

De Denus

(2013). Disclosure of individual pharmacogenomic results in research projects: When and what kind of information to return to research participants. Pharmacogenomics, 14(6), 675–688. https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs.13.50

29.

Loarec

Carnimeo

Molfino

Kizito

Muyindike

Andrieux-Meyer

Maman

(2019). Extremely low hepatitis C prevalence among HIV co-infected individuals in four countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS (London, England), 33(2), 353–355. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000002070

30.

Matsen

C. B.

Lyons

Goodman

M. S.

Biesecker

B. B.

Kaphingst

K. A

. (2019). Decision role preferences for return of results from genome sequencing amongst young breast cancer patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(1), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.08.004

31.

Matshabane

O. P.

Albertus

C. A.

Faure

M. C.

Ralefala

Donald

K. A.

Wonkam

De Vries

(2022). Preferences and expectations of feedback of individual genetic research results in African genomics: Views of South African parents of children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Open Research Africa, 5(41), 41. https://doi.org/10.12688/openresafrica.13594.1

32.

Matshabane

O. P.

Campbell

M. M.

Faure

M. C.

Marshall

P. A.

Mayosi

B. M.

Stein

D. J.

(2020). Exploring how a genetic attribution to disease relates to stigma experiences of Xhosa patients with schizophrenia in South Africa. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(12), 1679–1686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01875-z

33.

McGowan

M. L.

Prows

C. A.

DeJonckheere

Brinkman

W. B.

Vaughn

Myers

M. F.

(2018). Adolescent and parental attitudes about return of genomic research results: Focus group findings regarding decisional preferences. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(4), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618776613

34.

Moosa

Gengiah

T. N.

Lewis

Naidoo

. (2019). Long-term adherence to antiretroviral therapy in a South African adult patient cohort: A retrospective study. BMC Infectious Diseases, 19(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4410-8

35.

Mukonzo

J. K.

Owen

J. S.

Ogwal-Okeng

Kuteesa

R. B.

Nanzigu

Sewankambo

Klillu

. (2014). Pharmacogenetic-based efavirenz dose modification: Suggestions for an African population and the different CYP2B6 genotypes. PloS one, 9(1), e86919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086919

36.

Mwaka

E. S.

Sebatta

D. E.

Ochieng

Munabi

I. G.

Bagenda

Ainembabazi

Kaawa-Mafigiri

(2021a). Researchers’ perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: A qualitative study. Global Bioethics, 32(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2021.1896453

37.

Mwaka

E. S.

Sebatta

D. E.

Ochieng

Munabi

I. G.

Bagenda

Ainembabazi

Kaawa-Mafigiri

(2021b). Researchers’ perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: A qualitative study. Global Bioethics, 32(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2021.1896453

38.

Nabukenya

(2019). An assessment of understanding of information provided in genetic research among people living with HIV at the Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI). Makerere University.

39.

Ngaimisi

Habtewold

Minzi

Makonnen

Mugusi

Amogne

Aderaye

. (2013). Importance of ethnicity, CYP2B6 and ABCB1 genotype for efavirenz pharmacokinetics and treatment outcomes: A parallel-group prospective cohort study in two Sub-Saharan Africa populations. PloS one, 8(7), e67946. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067946

40.

Ochieng

Kwagala

Barugahare

Mwaka

Ekusai-Sebatta

Ali

Sewankambo

N. K.

(2021a). Perspectives and ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results: A qualitative study of genomics researchers in Uganda. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00724-1

41.

Ochieng

Kwagala

Barugahare

Mwaka

Ekusai-Sebatta

Ali

Sewankambo

N. K

. (2021b). Perspectives and ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results: A qualitative study of genomics researchers in Uganda. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00724-1

42.

Ralefala

., Kasule

., Matshabane

O. P

., Wonkam

., Matshaba

., & de Vries

. (2021). Participants’ preferences and reasons for wanting feedback of individual genetic research results from an HIV-TB genomic study: A case study from Botswana. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(5), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211043985

43.

Ralefala,

., Kasule

., Wonkam

., Matshaba

., & de Vries

. (2020). Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research? BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00549-4

44.

Ralefala

Kasule

Wonkam

Matshaba

de Vries

J. J. A. E. B.

(2022). Should feedback of individual results be integrated into the consent process in African genomics? Participants’ views from an HIV-TB genomics research project in Botswana. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 13(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1941414

45.

Rutakumwa

de Vries

Parker

Tindana

Mweemba

Seeley

(2020). What constitutes good ethical practice in genomic research in Africa? Perspectives of participants in a genomic research study in Uganda. Global Bioethics, 31(1), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2019.1592867

46.

Shahmirzadi

Chao

E. C.

Palmaer

Parra

M. C.

Tang

Gonzalez

K. D. F.

(2014). Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 16(5), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.153

47.

Wauters

Van Hoyweghen

(2016). Global trends on fears and concerns of genetic discrimination: A systematic literature review. Journal of Human Genetics, 61(4), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1038/jhg.2015.151

48.

Yamamoto

Hachiya

Fukushima

Nakaya

Okayama

Tanno

Shimizu

. (2017). Population-based biobank participants’ preferences for receiving genetic test results. Journal of Human Genetics, 62(12), 1037–1048. https://doi.org/10.1038/jhg.2017.81

49.

J. H.

Crouch

Jamal

S. M.

Tabor

H. K.

Bamshad

M. J.

(2013). Attitudes of African Americans toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 161(5), 1064–1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.35914

50.

Ziniel

Savage

S. K.

Huntington

Amatruda

Green

R. C.

Weitzman

E. R.

Taylor

Holm

I.A.

(2014). Parents’ preferences for return of results in pediatric genomic research. Public Health Genomics, 17(2), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1159/000358539