Advertisement

Educational considerations based on medical student use of polygenic risk information and apparent race in a simulated consultation

Published:September 02, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2022.08.004

      ABSTRACT

      Purpose

      To craft evidence-based educational approaches related to polygenic risk score (PRS) implementation, it is crucial to forecast issues and biases that may arise when PRS are introduced in clinical care.

      Methods

      Medical students (N = 84) were randomized to a simulated primary care encounter with a Black or White virtual reality–based patient and received either a direct-to-consumer–style PRS report for 5 common complex conditions or control information. The virtual patient inquired about 2 health concerns and her genetic report in the encounter. Data sources included participants’ verbalizations in the simulation, care plan recommendations, and self-report outcomes.

      Results

      When medical students received PRSs, they rated the patient as less healthy and requiring more strict advice. Patterns suggest that PRSs influenced specific medical recommendations related to the patient’s concerns, despite student reports that participants did not use it for that purpose. We observed complex patterns regarding the effect of patient race on recommendations and behaviors.

      Conclusion

      Educational approaches should consider potential unintentional influences of PRSs on decision-making and evaluate ways that they may be applied inconsistently across patients from different racial groups.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      ACMG Member Login

      Are you an ACMG Member? Sign in for online access.

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Genetics in Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Lambert S.A.
        • Abraham G.
        • Inouye M.
        Towards clinical utility of polygenic risk scores.
        Hum Mol Genet. 2019; 28: R133-R142https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddz187
        • Lewis A.C.F.
        • Green R.C.
        Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: new perspectives needed on familiar ethical issues.
        Genome Med. 2021; 13: 14https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-021-00829-7
        • Green E.D.
        • Gunter C.
        • Biesecker L.G.
        • et al.
        Strategic vision for improving human health at The Forefront of Genomics.
        Nature. 2020; 586: 683-692https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2817-4
        • Bouchard C.
        Genetics of obesity: what we have learned over decades of Research.
        Obesity (Silver Spring). 2021; 29: 802-820https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.23116
        • Khera A.V.
        • Chaffin M.
        • Wade K.H.
        • et al.
        Polygenic prediction of weight and obesity trajectories from birth to adulthood.
        Cell. 2019; 177: 587-596.e9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.03.028
        • Khera A.V.
        • Chaffin M.
        • Aragam K.G.
        • et al.
        Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations.
        Nat Genet. 2018; 50: 1219-1224https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0183-z
        • Lewis A.C.F.
        • Green R.C.
        • Vassy J.L.
        Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: translating risk into action.
        HGG Adv. 2021; 2100047https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xhgg.2021.100047
        • Lewis C.M.
        • Vassos E.
        Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments.
        Genome Med. 2020; 12: 44https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-020-00742-5
        • Torkamani A.
        • Wineinger N.E.
        • Topol E.J.
        The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores.
        Nat Rev Genet. 2018; 19: 581-590https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-018-0018-x
      1. Multhaup ML, Kita R, Krock B, et al. The science behind 23andMe's Type 2 Diabetes report. Estimating the likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes with polygenic models. Updated 2019. Accessed July 1, 2021. https://permalinks.23andme.com/pdf/23_19-Type2Diabetes_March2019.pdf

      2. Esther. 7 new reports added to MyHeritage Health; Published June 8, 2020. Accessed July 1, 2021. https://blog.myheritage.com/2020/06/7-new-reports-added-to-myheritage-health/

      3. Mullin E, This spit test promises to tell couples their risk of passing on common diseases. MIT Technology Review. Published April 21, 2021. Accessed July 1, 2021. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/04/21/1023268/genetic-disease-chances-orchid-embryo-testing-ivf/

      4. Media M. Global direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing market to expand at about 14.9% CAGR during 2020-2026. Published 2020. Accessed July 1, 2021. https://news.marketersmedia.com/global-direct-to-consumer-dtc-genetic-testing-market-to-expand-at-about-149-cagr-during-20202026-zmr/88983015

        • Carroll J.C.
        • Allanson J.
        • Morrison S.
        • et al.
        Informing integration of genomic medicine into primary care: an assessment of current practice, attitudes, and desired resources.
        Front Genet. 2019; 10: 1189https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.01189
        • Haga S.B.
        • Kim E.
        • Myers R.A.
        • Ginsburg G.S.
        Primary care physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and experience with personal genetic testing.
        J Pers Med. 2019; 9: 29https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm9020029
        • Brockman D.G.
        • Petronio L.
        • Dron J.S.
        • et al.
        Design and user experience testing of a polygenic score report: a qualitative study of prospective users.
        BMC Med Genomics. 2021; 14: 238https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-021-01056-0
        • Featherston R.
        • Downie L.E.
        • Vogel A.P.
        • Galvin K.L.
        Decision making biases in the allied health professions: a systematic scoping review.
        PLoS One. 2020; 15e0240716https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240716
        • Vyas D.A.
        • Eisenstein L.G.
        • Jones D.S.
        Hidden in plain sight — reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms.
        N Engl J Med. 2020; 383: 874-882https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms2004740
        • Borrell L.N.
        • Elhawary J.R.
        • Fuentes-Afflick E.
        • et al.
        Race and genetic ancestry in medicine – a time for reckoning with racism.
        N Engl J Med. 2021; 384: 474-480https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms2029562
        • Martin A.R.
        • Kanai M.
        • Kamatani Y.
        • Okada Y.
        • Neale B.M.
        • Daly M.J.
        Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities.
        Nat Genet. 2019; 51 (Published correction appears in Nat Genet. 2021;53(5):763.): 584-591
        • Sellers S.L.
        • Cunningham B.A.
        • Bonham V.L.
        Physician knowledge of human genetic variation, beliefs about race and genetics, and use of Race in clinical decision-making.
        J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2019; 6 (Published correction appears in J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2019;6(3):647-648.): 110-116
        • Hertz R.P.
        • Unger A.N.
        • Cornell J.A.
        • Saunders E.
        Racial disparities in hypertension prevalence, awareness, and management.
        Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165: 2098-2104https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.18.2098
        • Davis S.K.
        • Liu Y.
        • Gibbons G.H.
        Disparities in trends of hospitalization for potentially preventable chronic conditions among African Americans during the 1990s: implications and benchmarks.
        Am J Public Health. 2003; 93 (Published correction appears in Am J Public Health. 2003;93(5):703.): 447-455
        • Williams D.R.
        • Mohammed S.A.
        Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed research.
        J Behav Med. 2009; 32: 20-47https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-008-9185-0
        • Sirugo G.
        • Williams S.M.
        • Tishkoff S.A.
        The missing diversity in human genetic studies.
        Cell. 2019; 177 (Published correction appears in Cell. 2019;177(4):1080.): 26-31
        • Duncan L.
        • Shen H.
        • Gelaye B.
        • et al.
        Analysis of polygenic risk score usage and performance in diverse human populations.
        Nat Commun. 2019; 10: 3328https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11112-0
        • Persky S.
        • McBride C.M.
        Immersive virtual environment technology: a promising tool for future social and behavioral genomics research and practice.
        Health Commun. 2009; 24: 677-682https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230903263982
        • Hebl M.R.
        • Xu J.
        Weighing the care: physicians’ reactions to the size of a patient.
        Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001; 25: 1246-1252https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0801681
        • Bonham V.L.
        • Sellers S.L.
        • Woolford S.
        Physicians’ knowledge, beliefs, and use of race and human genetic variation: new measures and insights.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14: 456https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-456
        • Timmermans S.
        • Buchbinder M.
        Patients-in-waiting: living between sickness and health in the genomics era.
        J Health Soc Behav. 2010; 51: 408-423https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510386794
        • Reschovsky J.D.
        • Rich E.C.
        • Lake T.K.
        Factors contributing to variations in physicians’ use of evidence at the point of care: a conceptual model.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2015; 30 3: S555-S561https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3366-7
        • Hajjaj F.M.
        • Salek M.S.
        • Basra M.K.
        • Finlay A.Y.
        Non-clinical influences on clinical decision-making: a major challenge to evidence-based practice.
        J R Soc Med. 2010; 103: 178-187https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2010.100104
        • Persky S.
        • Eccleston C.P.
        Impact of genetic causal information on medical students’ clinical encounters with an obese virtual patient: health promotion and social stigma.
        Ann Behav Med. 2011; 41: 363-372https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9242-0
        • Priest N.
        • Slopen N.
        • Woolford S.
        • et al.
        Stereotyping across intersections of race and age: racial stereotyping among White adults working with children.
        PLoS One. 2018; 13 (Published correction appears in PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205614.)e0201696
        • Trivedi A.N.
        • Sommers B.D.
        The Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion, and disparities in kidney disease.
        Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018; 13: 480-482https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.10520917
        • Wang M.C.
        • Shah N.S.
        • Carnethon M.R.
        • O’Brien M.J.
        • Khan S.S.
        Age at diagnosis of diabetes by race and ethnicity in the United States from 2011 to 2018.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2021; 181: 1537-1539https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4945
        • Nisselle A.
        • King E.A.
        • McClaren B.
        • et al.
        Measuring physician practice, preparedness and preferences for genomic medicine: a national survey.
        BMJ Open. 2021; 11e044408https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044408
        • Abdallah K.E.
        • Calzone K.A.
        • Jenkins J.F.
        • Moss M.E.
        • Sellers S.L.
        • Bonham V.L.
        A comparison of physicians’ and nurse practitioners’ use of race in clinical decision-making.
        Ethn Dis. 2019; 29: 1-8https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.29.1.1