“I would like to discuss it further with an expert”: a focus group study of Finnish adults’ perspectives on genetic secondary findings
Lowered costs of genomic sequencing facilitate analyzing large segments of genetic data. Ethical debate has focused on whether and what kind of incidental or secondary findings (SFs) to report, and how to obtain valid informed consent. However, people’s support needs after receiving SFs have received less attention. We explored Finnish adults’ perspectives on reporting genetic SFs. In this qualitative study which included four focus group discussions (N = 23) we used four vignette letters, each reporting a genetic SF predisposing to a different disease: familial hypercholesterolemia, long QT syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Transcribed focus group discussions were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Major themes were immediate shock, dealing with worry and heightened risk, fear of being left alone to deal with SFs, disclosing to family, and identified support needs. Despite their willingness to receive SFs, participants were concerned about being left alone to deal with them. Empathetic expert support and timely access to preventive care were seen as essential to coping with shock and worry, and disclosing SFs to family. Discussion around SFs needs to concern not only which findings to report, but also how healthcare systems need to prepare for providing timely access to preventive care and support for individuals and families.
KeywordsIncidental findings Secondary findings Whole genome sequencing Public perspective Focus group Qualitative vignette study
This study was funded by the Academy of Finland (grant 275033 to AH). Funding source had no involvement in study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, in writing the report, or in decision to submit the article for publication.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Marleena Vornanen, Katja Aktan-Collan, Nina Hallowell, Hanna Konttinen, and Ari Haukkala declare that they have no conflict of interest. Helena Kääriäinen works part time as Clinical Geneticist in Docrates Clinic (a private cancer clinic), and as a Clinical Consultant in Blueprint Genetics laboratory. Helena Kääriäinen has received (September 2016) an honorarium from Orion Pharma (a presentation in a Symposium for Gynaecologists; the topic was genetic testing).
All procedures followed the Declaration of Helsinki ethical guidelines on research with human participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study. Study protocols were approved by the University of Helsinki Ethical Review Board in the Humanities and Social and Behavioural Sciences.
- Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Pylvänäinen K, Järvinen HJ, Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P, Rantanen E, Kääriäinen H, Mecklin J-P (2007) Direct contact in inviting high-risk members of hereditary colon cancer families to genetic counselling and DNA testing. J Med Genet 44:732–738CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Aktan-Collan K, Kääriäinen H, Järvinen H, Peltomäki P, Pylvänäinen K, Mecklin J-P, Haukkala A (2013) Psychosocial consequences of predictive genetic testing for lynch syndrome and associations to surveillance behaviour in a 7-year follow-up study. Familial Cancer 12:639–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barbour R (2008) Doing focus groups. Sage, Newcastle Google Scholar
- Gourna EG (2016) A cross-national investigation of professionals’ attitudes regarding clinical sequencing and incidental findings. Department of Health SciencesGoogle Scholar
- Hallowell N, Alsop K, Gleeson M, Crook A, Plunkett L, Bowtell D, Mitchell G (2013) The responses of research participants and their next of kin to receiving feedback of genetic test results following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study. Genet Med 15:458–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, Chung WK, Eng C, Evans JP, Herman GE, Hufnagel SB, Klein TE, Korf BR, et al (2016) Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet MedGoogle Scholar
- Lahti E (2013) Above and beyond perseverance: an exploration of sisuGoogle Scholar
- Lewis KL, Hooker GW, Connors PD, Hyams TC, Wright MF, Caldwell S, Biesecker LG, and Biesecker BB (2016) Participant use and communication of findings from exome sequencing: a mixed methods study. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med GenetGoogle Scholar
- Loud JT, Bremer RC, Mai PL, Peters JA, Giri N, Stewart DR, Greene MH, Alter BP, and Savage SA (2016) Research participant interest in primary, secondary, and incidental genomic findings. Genet MedGoogle Scholar
- Mackley MP, Fletcher B, Parker M, Watkins H, and Ormondroyd E (2016) Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Genet MedGoogle Scholar
- Newson AJ, Leonard SJ, Hall A, Gaff CL (2016) Known unknowns: building an ethics of uncertainty into genomic medicine. BMC Med Genet 9:57Google Scholar
- van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Lodder LN, Duivenvoorden HJ, van Gool AR, Seynaeve C, van der Meer CA, Klijn JG, van Geel BN, Burger CW et al (2003) Long-term psychological impact of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation and prophylactic surgery: a 5-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol 21:3867–3874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sanderson SC, Linderman MD, Suckiel SA, Diaz GA, Zinberg RE, Ferryman K, Wasserstein M, Kasarskis A, and Schadt EE (2015) Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: baseline findings from the HealthSeq project. Eur J Hum GenetGoogle Scholar
- Schneider K, Zelley K, Nichols KE, Garber J (1993) Li-Fraumeni syndrome. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Wallace SE, Amemiya A, Bean LJ, Bird TD, Ledbetter N, Mefford HC, Smith RJ et al (eds) GeneReviews(®). University of Washington, Seattle, SeattleGoogle Scholar
- Shkedi-Rafid S, Dheensa S, Crawford G, Fenwick A, and Lucassen A (2014) Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice. J Med Genet. jmedgenet–2014Google Scholar
- Wright MF, Lewis KL, Fisher TC, Hooker GW, Emanuel TE, Biesecker LG, Biesecker BB (2014) Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing: genome results preferences. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet 16:442Google Scholar