The Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) referral to women at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Latinas affected by breast cancer have the second highest prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations after Ashkenazi Jews. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Latinas have lower GCRA uptake. While some studies have identified barriers for GCRA use in this population, few studies have focused on health care providers’ perspectives. The purpose of the study was to examine providers’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators for at-risk Latina women to participate in GCRA and their experiences providing services to this population. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare providers (e.g., genetic counselors, patient navigators) recruited nationally through snowballing. Interviews were transcribed. Two coders independently coded each interview and then met to reconcile the codes using Consensual Qualitative Research guidelines. Providers identified several facilitators for GCRA uptake (e.g., family, treatment/prevention decisions) and barriers (e.g., cost, referrals, awareness, stigma). Genetic counselors described important aspects to consider when working with at-risk Latina including language barriers, obtaining accurate family histories, family communication, and testing relatives who live outside the US. Findings from this study can inform future interventions to enhance uptake and quality of GCRA in at-risk Latina women to reduce disparities. Full article

In familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), carriers profit from presymptomatic diagnosis and early treatment. Due to the autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance, first degree relatives of patients are at 50% risk. A program to identify healthy relatives at risk of premature cardiovascular problems, funded by the Netherlands government until 2014, raised questions on privacy and autonomy in view of the chosen active approach of family members. Several countries are building cascade screening programs inspired by Dutch experience, but meanwhile, the Netherlands’ screening program itself is in transition. Insight in stakeholders’ views on approaching family members is lacking. Literature and policy documents were studied, and stakeholders were interviewed on pros and cons of actively approaching healthy relatives. Sociotechnical analysis explored new roles and responsibilities, with uptake, privacy, autonomy, psychological burden, resources, and awareness as relevant themes. Stakeholders agree on the importance of early diagnosis and informing the family. Dutch healthcare typically focuses on cure, rather than prevention. Barriers to cascade screening are paying an own financial contribution, limited resources for informing relatives, and privacy regulation. To benefit from predictive, personalized, and preventive medicine, the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in genetic testing as a preventive strategy, and informing family members, need to be carefully realigned. Full article

The United States Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) was announced by then President Barack Obama in January 2015. It is a national effort designed to take into account genetic, environmental, and lifestyle differences in the development of individually tailored forms of treatment and prevention. This goal was implemented in March 2015 with the formation of an advisory committee working group to provide a framework for the proposed national research cohort of one million or more participants. The working group further held a public workshop on participant engagement and health equity, focusing on the design of an inclusive cohort, building public trust, and identifying active participant engagement features for the national cohort. Precision techniques offer medical and public health practitioners the opportunity to personally tailor preventive and therapeutic regimens based on informatics applied to large volume genotypic and phenotypic data. The PMI’s (All of Us Research Program’s) medical and public health promise, its balanced attention to technical and ethical issues, and its nuanced advisory structure made it a natural choice for inclusion in the University of Michigan course “Issues in Public Health Genetics” (HMP 517), offered each fall by the University’s School of Public Health. In 2015, the instructors included the PMI as the recurrent case study introduced at the beginning and referred to throughout the course, and as a class exercise allowing students to translate issues into policy. In 2016, an entire class session was devoted to precision medicine and precision public health. In this article, we examine the dialogues that transpired in these three course components, evaluate session impact on student ability to formulate PMI policy, and share our vision for next-generation courses dealing with precision health. Methodology: Class materials (class notes, oral exercise transcripts, class exercise written hand-ins) from the three course components were inspected and analyzed for issues and policy content. The purpose of the analysis was to assess the extent to which course components have enabled our students to formulate policy in the precision public health area. Analysis of student comments responding to questions posed during the initial case study comprised the initial or “pre-” categories. Analysis of student responses to the class exercise assignment, which included the same set of questions, formed the “post-” categories. Categories were validated by cross-comparison among the three authors, and inspected for frequency with which they appeared in student responses. Frequencies steered the selection of illustrative quotations, revealing the extent to which students were able to convert issue areas into actual policies. Lecture content and student comments in the precision health didactic session were inspected for degree to which they reinforced and extended the derived categories. Results: The case study inspection yielded four overarching categories: (1) assurance (access, equity, disparities); (2) participation (involvement, representativeness); (3) ethics (consent, privacy, benefit sharing); and (4) treatment of people (stigmatization, discrimination). Class exercise inspection and analysis yielded three additional categories: (5) financial; (6) educational; and (7) trust-building. The first three categories exceeded the others in terms of number of student mentions (8–14 vs. 4–6 mentions). Three other categories were considered and excluded because of infrequent mention. Students suggested several means of trust-building, including PMI personnel working with community leaders, stakeholder consultation, networking, and use of social media. Student representatives prioritized participant and research institution access to PMI information over commercial access. Multiple schemes were proposed for participant consent and return of results. Both pricing policy and Medicaid coverage were touched on. During the didactic session, students commented on the importance of provider training in precision health. Course evaluation highlighted the need for clarity on the organizations involved in the PMI, and leaving time for student-student interaction. Conclusions: While some student responses during the exercise were terse, an evolution was detectable over the three course components in student ability to suggest tangible policies and steps for implementation. Students also gained surety in presenting policy positions to a peer audience. Students came up with some very creative suggestions, such as use of an electronic platform to assure participant involvement in the disposition of their biological sample and personal health information, and alternate examples of ways to manage large volumes of data. An examination of socio-ethical issues and policies can strengthen student understanding of the directions the Precision Medicine Initiative is taking, and aid in training for the application of more varied precision medicine and public health techniques, such as tier 1 genetic testing and whole genome and exome sequencing. Future course development may reflect additional features of the ongoing All of Us Research Program, and further articulate precision public health approaches applying to populations as opposed to single individuals. Full article

Genomic medicine is moving from research to the clinic. There is a lack of evidence about the impact of genomic medicine interventions on health outcomes. This is due in part to a lack of standardized outcome measures that can be used across different programs to evaluate the impact of interventions targeted to specific genetic conditions. The eMERGE Outcomes working group (OWG) developed measures to collect information on outcomes following the return of genomic results to participants for several genetic disorders. These outcomes were compared to outcome intervention pairs for genetic disorders developed independently by the ClinGen Actionability working group (AWG). In general, there was concordance between the defined outcomes between the two groups. The ClinGen outcomes tended to be from a higher level and the AWG scored outcomes represented a subset of outcomes referenced in the accompanying AWG evidence review. eMERGE OWG outcomes were more detailed and discrete, facilitating a collection of relevant information from the health records. This paper demonstrates that common outcomes for genomic medicine interventions can be identified. Further work is needed to standardize outcomes across genomic medicine implementation projects and to make these publicly available to enhance dissemination and assist in making precision public health a reality. Full article

Introduction: Precision medicine aims to focus on meeting patient requirements accurately, optimizing patient outcomes, and reducing under-/overdiagnosis and therapy. We aim to offer a fresh perspective on accuracy driven “age-old precision medicine” and illustrate how newer case-based blended learning ecosystems (CBBLE) can strengthen the bridge between age-old precision approaches with modern technology and omics-driven approaches. Methodology: We present a series of cases and examine the role of precision medicine within a “case-based blended learning ecosystem” (CBBLE) as a practicable tool to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We illustrated the workflow of our CBBLE through case-based narratives from global students of CBBLE in high and low resource settings as is reflected in global health. Results: Four micro-narratives based on collective past experiences were generated to explain concepts of age-old patient-centered scientific accuracy and precision and four macro-narratives were collected from individual learners in our CBBLE. Insights gathered from a critical appraisal and thematic analysis of the narratives were discussed. Discussion and conclusion: Case-based narratives from the individual learners in our CBBLE amply illustrate their journeys beginning with “age-old precision thinking” in low-resource settings and progressing to “omics-driven” high-resource precision medicine setups to demonstrate how the approaches, used judiciously, might reduce the current pandemic of over-/underdiagnosis and over-/undertreatment. Full article

From a public health perspective, the “All of Us” study provides an opportunity to isolate targeted and cost-effective prevention and early-detection strategies. Identifying motivations for participation in large-scale genomic sequencing (LSGS) studies, and motivations and preferences to receive results will help determine effective strategies for “All of Us” study implementation. This paper offers a critical review of the literature regarding LSGS for adult onset hereditary conditions where results could indicate an increased risk to develop disease. The purpose of this review is to synthesize studies which explored peoples’ motivations for participating in LSGS studies, and their desire to receive different types of genetic results. Participants were primarily motivated by altruism, desire to know more about their health, and curiosity. When asked about hypothetically receiving results, most participants in hypothetical studies wanted all results except those which were uncertain (i.e., a variant of uncertain significance (VUS)). However, participants in studies where results were returned preferred to receive only results for which an intervention was available, but also wanted VUS. Concerns about peoples’ understanding of results and possible psychosocial implications are noted. Most studies examined populations classified as “early adopters,” therefore, additional research on motivations and expectations among the general public, minority, and underserved populations is needed. Full article

Precision medicine is an approach to medical treatment and prevention that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle and allows for personalization that is based on factors that may affect the response to treatment. Several genetic and epigenetic risk factors have been shown to increase susceptibility to late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (AD). As such, it may be beneficial to integrate genetic risk factors into the AD prevention approach, which in the past has primarily been focused on universal risk-reduction strategies for the general population rather than individualized interventions in a targeted fashion. This review discusses examples of a “one-size-fits-all” versus clinical precision medicine AD prevention strategy, in which the precision medicine approach considers two genes that can be commercially sequenced for polymorphisms associated with AD, apolipoprotein E (APOE), and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR). Comparing these two distinct approaches provides support for a clinical precision medicine prevention strategy, which may ultimately lead to more favorable patient outcomes as the interventions are targeted to address individualized risks. Full article