Objective: The Return of Answer ALS Results (RoAR) Study was designed to provide a mechanism for participants in Answer ALS, a large, prospectively designed natural history and biorepository study to receive select clinical genetic testing results and study participants\' experience with the results disclosure. Methods: Participants consented to receive results of five ALS genes (C9orf72, SOD1, FUS, TARDP, TBK1) and/or 59 medically actionable genes as designated by the American College of Medical Genetics. Patient-reported genetic testing outcomes were measured via a post-disclosure survey. Results: Of 645 eligible Answer ALS enrollees, 143 (22%) enrolled and completed participation in RoAR. Pathogenic variants were identified in 22/143 (15.4%) participants, including 13/143 (9.0%) in ALS genes and 9/143 (6.3%) in ACMG genes. Participant-reported measures of result utility indicated the research result disclosure was as or more successful than published patient-reported outcomes of result disclosure the clinical setting. Conclusions: This study serves as a model of a \"disclosure study\" to share results from genomic research with participants who were not initially offered the option to receive results, and our findings can inform the design of future, large scale genomic projects to empower research participants to access their genetic information.

Newborn screening (NBS) programs are considered among the most effective and efficient measures of secondary prevention in medicine. In individuals with medical conditions, genomic sequencing has become available in routine healthcare, and results from exome or genome sequencing may help to guide treatment decisions. Genomic sequencing in healthy or asymptomatic newborns (gNBS) is feasible and reveals clinically relevant disorders that are not detectable by biochemical analyses alone. However, the implementation of genomic sequencing in population-based screening programs comes with technological, clinical, ethical, and psychological issues, as well as economic and legal topics. Here, we address and discuss the most important questions to be considered when implementing gNBS, such as \"which categories of results should be reported\" or \"which is the best time to return results\". We also offer ideas on how to balance expected benefits against possible harms to children and their families.

Understanding attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality is important in guiding policies regarding special protections for genetic/genomic information stored in electronic health records (EHR). The goals of this study were to determine biobank participants\' attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality and whether those attitudes are related to their preference for return of genetic results. An online questionnaire was distributed to patients with an EHR and email address who had previously enrolled in the BioMe Biobank program. Most participants responded with similar levels of concern in scenarios involving the use of genetic information and other types of health information, suggesting that participants want similar protections for genetic data as other types of sensitive health information, particularly mental health and family history records. Of the 829 respondents, the majority had genetic exceptionalist views when directly asked, even though their concerns about confidentiality were similar for their genetic information and other health information. There were no differences in genetic exceptionalist views between those who had a documented preference to have genetic results returned and those who did not. Notably, for many participants, their recall of preference did not align with their documented preference. The majority of biobank participants were most anxious about the loss of confidentiality for genetic, mental health, and family history information, indicating that certain types of health information are considered more \"sensitive\" than others. These findings suggest the importance of assuring people participating in biobank research that the confidentiality of their \"sensitive\" health information is secured.

Research on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for common, genetically complex chronic diseases aims to improve health-related predictions, tailor risk-reducing interventions, and improve health outcomes. Yet, the study and use of PRSs in clinical settings raise equity, clinical, and regulatory challenges that can be greater for individuals from historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and other minoritized communities. As part of the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics IV Network, we conducted online focus groups with patients/community members, clinicians, and members of institutional review boards to explore their views on key issues, including PRS research, return of PRS results, clinical translation, and barriers and facilitators to health behavioral changes in response to PRS results. Across stakeholder groups, our findings indicate support for PRS development and a strong interest in having PRS results returned to research participants. However, we also found multi-level barriers and significant differences in stakeholders\' views about what is needed and possible for successful implementation. These include researcher-participant interaction formats, health and genomic literacy, and a range of structural barriers, such as financial instability, insurance coverage, and the absence of health-supporting infrastructure and affordable healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. Our findings highlight the need to revisit and implement measures in PRS studies (e.g., incentives and resources for follow-up care), as well as system-level policies to promote equity in genomic research and health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Counseling for whole-exome sequencing (WES) could benefit from aligning parents\' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes. A few studies have qualitatively compared parents\' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward receiving WES results for their child in a diagnostic setting. This study explored these attitudes in the context of children with a developmental delay.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents (n = 27) of 16 children undergoing diagnostic WES in trio-analysis, both before and after receiving results.
RESULTS: Three key insights emerged. First, the distinction between hoping and expecting was relevant for shaping parents\' experiences with receiving results related to the primary indication. Second, parents of young children whose development of autonomous capacities was uncertain sometimes found themselves in a situation resembling a Catch-22 when confronted with decisions about unsolicited findings (UFs): an important reason for consenting to WES was to gain a better picture of how the child might develop, but in order to make responsible choices about UFs, some ideas of their child\'s development is needed. Third, default opt-ins and opt-outs helped parents fathom new kinds of considerations for accepting or declining UFs in different categories, thereby aiding decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study are relevant for counseling and policy development.

BACKGROUND: A fundamental ethical issue in African genomics research is how socio-cultural factors impact perspectives, acceptance, and utility of genomic information, especially in stigmatizing conditions like orofacial clefts (OFCs). Previous research has shown that gatekeepers (e.g., religious, political, family or community leaders) wield considerable influence on the decision-making capabilities of their members, including health issues. Thus, their perspectives can inform the design of engagement strategies and increase exposure to the benefits of genomics testing/research. This is especially important for Africans underrepresented in genomic research. Our study aims to investigate the perspectives of gatekeepers concerning genomic risk information (GRI) in the presence of OFCs in a sub-Saharan African cohort.
METHODS: Twenty-five focus group discussions (FGDs) consisting of 214 gatekeepers (religious, community, ethnic leaders, and traditional birth attendants) in Lagos, Nigeria, explored the opinions of participants on genomic risk information (GRI), OFC experience, and the possibility of involvement in collaborative decision-making in Lagos, Nigeria. Transcripts generated from audio recordings were coded and analyzed in NVivo using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Three main themes-knowledge, beliefs, and willingness to act-emerged from exploring the perspective of gatekeepers about GRI in this group. We observed mixed opinions regarding the acceptance of GRI. Many participants believed their role is to guide and support members when they receive results; this is based on the level of trust their members have in them. However, participants felt they would need to be trained by medical experts to do this. Also, religious and cultural beliefs were crucial to determining participants\' understanding of OFCs and the acceptance and utilization of GRI.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating cultural sensitivity into public engagement could help develop appropriate strategies to manage conflicting ideologies surrounding genomic information in African communities. This will allow for more widespread access to the advances in genomics research in underrepresented populations. We also recommend a synergistic relationship between community health specialists/scientists, and community leaders, including spiritual providers to better understand and utilize GRI.

UNASSIGNED: The Rare and Atypical DIAbetes NeTwork (RADIANT) aims to discover the underlying pathoetiology of atypical diabetes by conducting both genotyping and non-genetic deep phenotyping. While the return of genetic test results in research settings has been investigated, the return of non-genetic results (RoR-NG) has received less attention. We explore the RoR-NG with RADIANT investigators and participants.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted one-on-one interviews with 10 adult RADIANT participants and 10 RADIANT investigators. Participants also completed two health literacy screening tools and a survey on perspectives regarding return of results (RoR). Investigators completed one survey on experience and confidence in explaining clinical tests utilized in the RADIANT study and another survey on perspectives regarding RoR.
UNASSIGNED: Most participants were non-Hispanic White. All participants had high scores on health literacy screens. Both RADIANT participants and investigators expressed strong support for RoR-NG. RADIANT participants and investigators acknowledged the different roles and responsibilities between research and clinical care for interpreting and acting on non-genetic results. However, the lines between clinical care and research in returning and acting on results were often blurred by both participants and investigators.
UNASSIGNED: Our study provides important insight into how both investigators and participants simultaneously distinguish and blur clinical and research roles and responsibilities when discussing non-genetic research results and the return of these results. Further study should engage individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and with varying levels of health literacy to understand how best to support all participants when returning research results.

Today, many epidemiological studies and biobanks are offering to disclose individual genetic results to their participants, including the National Institutes of Health\'s All of Us Research Program. Returning hereditary disease risks and pharmacogenetic test results to study participants from racial/ethnic groups that are historically underrepresented in biomedical research poses specific challenges to those participants and the health system writ large. For example, individuals of African descent are underrepresented in research about drug-gene interactions and have a relatively higher proportion of variants of unknown significance, affecting their ability to take clinical action following return of results. In this brief report, we summarize studies published to date concerning the perspectives and/or attitudes of African Americans engaged in genetic research programs to anticipate factors in disclosure protocols that would minimize risks and maximize benefits. A thematic analysis of studies identified (n = 6) lends to themes centered on motivations to engage or disengage in the return of results and integrating research and care. Actionable strategies determined in reaction to these themes center on ensuring adequate system and health education support for participants and personalizing the process for participants engaging in return of results. Overall, we offer these themes and actionable strategies as early guidance to research programs, and provide recommendations to policy makers focused on fair and equitable return of genetic research results to underrepresented research participants.

Over the last decade, the return of results (ROR) in precision medicine research (PMR) has become increasingly routine. Calls for individual rights to research results have extended the \"duty to report\" from clinically useful genetic information to traits and ancestry results. ROR has thus been reframed as inherently beneficial to research participants, without a needed focus on who benefits and how. This paper addresses this gap, particularly in the context of PMR aimed at increasing participant diversity, by providing investigator and researcher perspectives on and questions about the assumed value of ROR in PMR.
Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of investigators and researchers across federally funded PMR studies in three national consortia, as well as observations of study activities, focused on how PM researchers conceptualize diversity and implement inclusive practices across research stages, including navigating ROR.
Interviewees (1) validated the value of ROR as a benefit of PMR, while others (2) questioned the benefit of clinically actionable results to individuals in the absence of sufficient resources for translating findings into health care for diverse and disadvantaged populations; (3) expressed uncertainties in applying the presumed value of ROR as a benefit for non-clinical results; and (4) and debated when the promise of the value of ROR may undermine trust in PMR, and divert efforts to return value beyond ROR.
Conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion among PM researchers and investigators raise unique ethical questions where unexamined assumptions of the value of ROR inform study recruitment efforts to enroll minoritized and under-represented populations. A lack of consideration for resources and infrastructure necessary to translate ROR into actionable information may hinder trustworthy community-research relationships. Thus, we argue for a more intentional interrogation of ROR practices as an offer of benefit and for whom.

Massively parallel sequencing techniques, such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), may reveal unsolicited findings (UFs) unrelated to the diagnostic aim. Such techniques are frequently used for diagnostic purposes in pediatric cases of developmental delay (DD). Yet policy guidelines for informed consent and return of UFs are not well equipped to address specific moral challenges that may arise in these children\'s situations.
In previous empirical studies conducted by our research group, we found that it is sometimes uncertain how children with a DD will develop and whether they could come to possess capacities for autonomous decision-making in the future. Parents sometimes felt this brought them into a Catch-22 like situation when confronted with choices about UFs before undergoing WES in trio-analysis (both the parents\' and child\'s DNA are sequenced). An important reason for choosing to consent to WES was to gain more insight into how their child might develop. However, to make responsible choices about receiving or declining knowledge of UFs, some idea of their child\'s future development of autonomous capacities is needed. This undesirable Catch-22 situation was created by the specific policy configuration in which parents were required to make choices about UFs before being sequencing (trio-analysis). We argue that this finding is relevant for reconfiguring current policies for return of UFs for WES/WGS and propose guidelines that encompass two features. First, the informed consent process ought to be staged. Second, differing guidelines are required for withholding/disclosing a UF in cases of DD appropriate to the level of confidence there is about the child\'s future developmental of autonomous capacities.
When combined with a dynamic consent procedure, these two features of our guidelines could help overcome significant moral challenges that present themselves in the situations of children undergoing genomic sequencing for clarifying a DD.