"Possibly positive or certainly uncertain?": Participants' responses to uncertain diagnostic results from exome sequencing

40Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Clinical genome sequencing produces uncertain diagnostic results, raising concerns about how to communicate the method's inherent complexities in ways that reduce potential misunderstandings and harm. This study investigates clinicians' communications and patient/participant responses to uncertain diagnostic results arising from a clinical exome sequencing research study, contributing empirical data to the debate surrounding disclosure of uncertain genomic information. Methods: We investigated the communication and impact of uncertain diagnostic results using ethnographic observations of result disclosures with 21 adults and 11 parents of child patients, followed by two semistructured interviews with these same participants. Results: Participants understood their uncertain results in ways that were congruent with clinical geneticists' communications. They followed recommendations for further consultation, although family testing to resolve uncertainty was not always done. Participants were prepared for learning an uncertain result and grasped the key concept that it should not be used to guide health-care or other decisions. They did not express regret for having learned the uncertain result; most regarded it as potentially valuable in the future. Conclusion: This study suggests that uncertain diagnostic results from genome sequencing can be relayed to patients in ways they can understand and consistent with providers' interpretations, without causing undue harm.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Skinner, D., Roche, M. I., Weck, K. E., Raspberry, K. A., Foreman, A. K. M., Strande, N. T., … Henderson, G. E. (2018). “Possibly positive or certainly uncertain?”: Participants’ responses to uncertain diagnostic results from exome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 20(3), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.135

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free