Dataset Information

Perspectives of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients on the clinical use of polygenic risk scores.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

As polygenic risk scores (PRS) emerge as promising tools to inform clinical care, there is a pressing need for patient-centered evidence to guide their implementation, particularly in diverse populations. Here, we conducted in-depth interviews of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients to explore their perspectives on clinical PRS.

Methods

We enrolled 30 biobank participants aged 35-50 years through a purposive sampling strategy, ensuring that >75% self-reported as African/African American or Hispanic/Latinx and half were Spanish-speaking. Semistructured interviews in Spanish or English explored attitudes toward PRS, barriers to adoption, and communication preferences. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

Results

Perceived utility of clinical PRS focused on the potential for personal health benefits, and most participants stated that high-risk results would prompt physician consultations and health behavior changes. There was little concern among participants about the limited predictive power of PRS for non-European populations. Barriers to uptake of PRS testing and adoption of PRS-related recommendations included socioeconomic factors, insurance status, race, ethnicity, language, and inadequate understanding of PRS. Participants favored in-person PRS result disclosure by their physician.

Conclusion

Findings provide valuable insight into diverse patients' attitudes and potential barriers related to clinical PRS, guiding future research and patient-centered clinical implementation.

SUBMITTER: Suckiel SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10066541 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perspectives of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients on the clinical use of polygenic risk scores.

Suckiel Sabrina A SA Braganza Giovanna T GT Aguiñiga Karla López KL Odgis Jacqueline A JA Bonini Katherine E KE Kenny Eimear E EE Hamilton Jada G JG Abul-Husn Noura S NS

Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 20220405 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>As polygenic risk scores (PRS) emerge as promising tools to inform clinical care, there is a pressing need for patient-centered evidence to guide their implementation, particularly in diverse populations. Here, we conducted in-depth interviews of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients to explore their perspectives on clinical PRS.<h4>Methods</h4>We enrolled 30 biobank participants aged 35-50 years through a purposive sampling strategy, ensuring that >75% self-reported as ...[more]

PMID: 35380538

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAdvance care planning improves the receipt of medical care aligned with patients' values; however, it remains suboptimal among diverse patient populations. To mitigate literacy, cultural, and language barriers to advance care planning, easy-to-read advance directives and a patient-directed, online advance care planning program called PREPARE For Your Care (PREPARE) were created in English and Spanish.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of PREPARE plus an easy-to-read advance directive with an advance directive alone to increase advance care planning documentation and patient-reported engagement.Design, setting, and participantsA comparative efficacy randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 1, 2014, to November 30, 2017, at 4 safety-net, primary-care clinics in San Francisco among 986 English-speaking or Spanish-speaking primary care patients 55 years or older with 2 or more chronic or serious illnesses.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to PREPARE plus an easy-to-read advance directive (PREPARE arm) or the advance directive alone. There were no clinician-level or system-level interventions. Staff were blinded for all follow-up measurements.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was documentation of new advance care planning (ie, legal forms and/or documented discussions) at 15 months. Patient-reported outcomes included advance care planning engagement at baseline, 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using validated surveys. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed using mixed-effects logistic and linear regression, controlling for time, health literacy, and baseline advance care planning, clustering by physician, and stratifying by language.ResultsAmong the 986 participants (603 women and 383 men), the mean (SD) age was 63.3 (6.4) years, 387 of 975 (39.7%) had limited health literacy, and 445 (45.1%) were Spanish speaking. No participant characteristic differed between the 2 groups, and retention was 85.9% (832 of 969) among survivors. Compared with the advance directive alone, PREPARE resulted in a higher rate of advance care planning documentation (unadjusted, 43.0% [207 of 481] vs 33.1% [167 of 505]; P < .001; adjusted, 43.0% vs 32.0%; P < .001) and higher self-reported increased advance care planning engagement scores (98.1% vs 89.5%; P < .001). Results remained significant among English speakers and Spanish speakers.Conclusions and relevanceThe patient-facing PREPARE program and an easy-to-read advance directive, without clinician-level or system-level interventions, increased documentation of advance care planning and patient-reported engagement, with statistically higher gains for PREPARE vs advance directive alone. These tools may mitigate literacy and language barriers to advance care planning, allow patients to begin planning on their own, and could substantially improve the process for diverse English-speaking and Spanish-speaking populations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01990235 and NCT02072941.

Project description:BackgroundLimited health literacy (HL) contributes to poor health outcomes and disparities, and direct measurement is often time-intensive. Self-reported HL questions have not been validated among Spanish-speaking and diverse English-speaking populations.ObjectiveTo evaluate three self-reported questions: 1 "How confident are you filling out medical forms?"; 2 "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?"; and 3 "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" Answers were based on a 5-point Likert scale.DesignThis was a validation study nested within a trial of diabetes self-management support in the San Francisco Department of Public Health.ParticipantsEnglish and Spanish-speaking adults with type 2 diabetes receiving primary care.MethodsUsing the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (s-TOFHLA) in English and Spanish as the reference, we classified HL as inadequate, marginal, or adequate. We calculated the C-index and test characteristics of the three questions and summative scale compared to the s-TOFHLA and assessed variations in performance by language, race/ethnicity, age, and education.Key resultsOf 296 participants, 48% were Spanish-speaking; 9% were White, non-Hispanic; 47% had inadequate HL and 12% had marginal HL. Overall, 57% reported being confident with forms "somewhat" or less. The "confident with forms" question performed best for detecting inadequate (C-index = 0.82, (0.77-0.87)) and inadequate plus marginal HL (C index = 0.81, (0.76-0.86); p<0.01 for differences from other questions), and performed comparably to the summative scale. The "confident with forms" question and scale also performed best across language, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and age.ConclusionsA single self-reported HL question about confidence with forms and a summative scale of three questions discriminated between Spanish and English speakers with adequate HL and those with inadequate and/or inadequate plus marginal HL. The "confident with forms" question or the summative scale may be useful for estimating HL in clinical research involving Spanish-speaking and English-speaking, chronically-ill, diverse populations.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to identify and describe latent dual language profiles in a large sample of school-age Spanish-English bilingual children designated as English learners (ELs) by their school district.MethodData for this study include 847 Spanish-speaking ELs from kindergarten to third grade. Spanish and English narrative retell language samples were collected from all participants. Four oral language measures were calculated in Spanish and English, including the subordination index, moving average type-token ratio, narrative structure scheme (NSS), and words per minute using Systematic Analysis of Language Transcript. These indicator measures were used in a latent profile analysis to identify dual language profiles.ResultsThe optimal model represents a four-profile solution, including a Spanish-dominant group (average Spanish, low English), an English-dominant group (low Spanish, average English), and two balanced groups (a balanced-average group and a balanced-high group). Additionally, participants displayed uneven performance across language domains and distinct patterns of unique strength or weakness in a specific domain in one of their two languages.ConclusionsFindings from this study highlight the large variability in English and Spanish oral language abilities in school-age Spanish-speaking ELs and suggest that a dichotomous classification of ELs versus English-proficient students may not be sufficient to determine the type of educational program that best fits a specific bilingual child's need. These findings highlight the need to assess both languages across multiple language domains to paint a representative picture of a bilingual child's language abilities. The dual language profiles identified may be used to guide the educational program selection process to improve the congruence among the linguistic needs of an individual child, teachers' use of instructional language, and the goals of the educational program (i.e., improving English proficiency vs. supporting dual language development).Supplemental materialhttps://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20151836.

Project description:BackgroundPolygenic risk scores (PRS), which offer information about genomic risk for common diseases, have been proposed for clinical implementation. The ways in which PRS information may influence a patient's health trajectory depend on how both the patient and their primary care provider (PCP) interpret and act on PRS information. We aimed to probe patient and PCP responses to PRS clinical reporting choices METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews of both patients (N=25) and PCPs (N=21) exploring responses to mock PRS clinical reports of two different designs: binary and continuous representations of PRS.ResultsMany patients did not understand the numbers representing risk, with high numeracy patients being the exception. However, all the patients still understood a key takeaway that they should ask their PCP about actions to lower their disease risk. PCPs described a diverse range of heuristics they would use to interpret and act on PRS information. Three separate use cases for PRS emerged: to aid in gray-area clinical decision-making, to encourage patients to do what PCPs think patients should be doing anyway (such as exercising regularly), and to identify previously unrecognized high-risk patients. PCPs indicated that receiving "below average risk" information could be both beneficial and potentially harmful, depending on the use case. For "increased risk" patients, PCPs were favorable towards integrating PRS information into their practice, though some would only act in the presence of evidence-based guidelines. PCPs describe the report as more than a way to convey information, viewing it as something to structure the whole interaction with the patient. Both patients and PCPs preferred the continuous over the binary representation of PRS (23/25 and 17/21, respectively). We offer recommendations for the developers of PRS to consider for PRS clinical report design in the light of these patient and PCP viewpoints.ConclusionsPCPs saw PRS information as a natural extension of their current practice. The most pressing gap for PRS implementation is evidence for clinical utility. Careful clinical report design can help ensure that benefits are realized and harms are minimized.

Project description:Background and objectiveEffective communication with primary care physicians is important yet incompletely understood for Spanish-speaking parents. We predicted lower satisfaction among Spanish-speaking compared to English-speaking Latino and non-Latino parents.MethodsCross-sectional analysis at 2-month well visits within the Greenlight study at 4 pediatric resident clinics. Parents reported satisfaction with 14 physician communication items using the validated Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). High satisfaction was defined as "excellent" on each CAT item. Mean estimations compared satisfaction for communication items among Spanish- and English-speaking Latinos and non-Latinos. We used generalized linear regression modeling, adjusted for parent age, education, income, and clinic site. Among Spanish-speaking parents, we compared visits conducted in Spanish with and without an interpreter, and in English.ResultsCompared to English-speaking Latino (n = 127) and non-Latino parents (n = 432), fewer Spanish-speaking parents (n = 303) reported satisfaction with 14 communication items. No significant differences were found between English-speaking Latinos and non-Latinos. Greatest differences were found in the use of a greeting that made the parent comfortable (59.4% of Spanish-speaking Latinos endorsing "excellent" vs 77.5% English-speaking Latinos, P < .01) and discussing follow-up (62.5% of Spanish-speaking Latinos vs 79.8% English-speaking Latinos, P < .01). After adjusting for parent age, education, income, and study site, Spanish-speaking Latinos were still less likely to report high satisfaction with these communication items. Satisfaction was not different among Spanish-speaking parents when the physician spoke Spanish versus used an interpreter.ConclusionsSatisfaction with physician communication was associated with language but not ethnicity. Spanish-speaking parents less frequently report satisfaction with communication, and innovative solutions to enhance communication quality are needed.

Dataset Information

Perspectives of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients on the clinical use of polygenic risk scores.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Perspectives of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients on the clinical use of polygenic risk scores.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets