Background The potential for genomic incidental findings is increasing with the use of genome-based testing. At the same time approaches to clinical decision making are shifting to shared decision-making models involving both the healthcare community and the public. The public’s voice has been nearly absent in discussions on managing incidental findings. Methods We conducted 9 focus groups and 9 interviews (N=63) with a broad cross-section of lay public groups to elucidate public viewpoints on incidental findings that could occur as a result of genome-based testing in clinical and research situations. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results Participants wanted incidental findings disclosed to them whether or not these were clinical or research findings. Participants used different terms to define and describe incidental findings; they wanted to know that incidental findings are possible and be given a choice to learn about them. Personal utility was an important reason for disclosure, and participants believed that managing information is a shared responsibility between professionals and themselves. Conclusion Broad public input is needed in order to understand and incorporate the public’s perspective on management of incidental findings as disclosure guidelines and policies are developed in clinical and research settings.

Next generation sequencing offers benefit of improved health through knowledge, but comes with challenges, such as inevitable incidental findings (IFs). The applicability of recommended criteria for disclosure of individual results when applied to disclosure of IFs is not well known. The purpose of this study was to examine how medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) chairs perceive the importance of recommended criteria when applied to genetic/genomic IFs. We conducted telephone interviews with medical genetic specialists (genetic counselors, genetic nurses, medical geneticists, laboratory professionals), genomic researchers, and IRB chairs (N=103). Respondents rated and discussed the importance of nine recommended criteria regarding disclosure of genetic/genomic IFs. Stakeholders agreed the most important criteria for disclosure were: (1) the IF points to a life-threatening condition; (2) there is a treatment; (3) individuals indicate in writing they wanted to be informed of IFs. Criteria rated less important were: analytic validity, high penetrance, association with a young age of onset and relative risk more than 2.0. Respondents indicated that some technical criteria were confusing, and in need of context. Our findings suggest that development of guidelines regarding management of IF include multiple stakeholders' perspectives and be based on a common language.

Although there are numerous position papers on the issues and challenges surrounding disclosure of incidental genomic findings involving children, there is very little research. To fill this gap, the purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of multiple professional (N=103) and public (N=63) stakeholders using both interviews and focus groups. Using qualitative analysis, we identified one overarching theme, "It's hard for us; it's hard for them," and three subthemes/questions: "What to disclose?," "Who gets the information?," and "What happens later?" Perspectives differed between professional (Institutional Review Board chairs, clinicians, and researchers) and public stakeholders. While professionals focused on the complexities of what to disclose, the lay public stated that parents should have all information laid out for them. Professionals pondered multiple parent and child situations, while the public identified parents as informational gatekeepers who know their children best. Professionals described the potential requirement for follow-up over time as a logistical "nightmare," while the public believed that parents have the responsibility for managing their children's health information over time.However, the parent role as gatekeeper was seen as time limited and in need of professional support and backup. Our findings present a case for needed dialogue around what we propose as an "ethically important moment," with the goal of protecting and respecting the viewpoints of all stakeholders when policies regarding children are developed.

Using the familial risk perception (FRP) model as a framework, we elicited causal and inheritance explanations for type 2 diabetes (T2D) from people who do not have T2D but have a family history for it. We identified four composite mental models for cause of T2D: (a) purely genetic; (b) purely behavioral/environmental; (c) direct multifactorial, in which risk factors interact and over time directly lead to T2D; and (d) indirect multifactorial, in which risk factors interact and over time cause a precursor health condition (such as obesity or metabolic syndrome) that leads to T2D. Interestingly, participants described specific risk factors such as genetics, food habits, lifestyle, weight, and culture as "running in the family." Our findings provide insight into lay beliefs about T2D that can be used by clinicians to anticipate or make sense of responses to questions they pose to patients about mental models for T2D.

Screening for hereditary cardiomyopathies and arrhythmias (HCA) may enable early detection, treatment, targeted surveillance, and result in effective prevention of debilitating complications and sudden cardiac death. Screening at-risk family members for HCA is conducted through cascade screening. Only half of at-risk family members are screened for HCA. To participate in screening, at-risk family members must be aware of their risk. This often relies on communication from diagnosed individuals to their relatives. However, family communication is not well understood and is ripe for developing interventions to improve screening rates. Until very recently, family communication of genetic risk has been mostly studied in non-cardiac disease. Using this non-cardiac literature, we developed the family communication of genetic risk (FCGR) conceptual framework. The FCGR has four main elements of the communication process: influential factors, communication strategies, communication occurrence, and reaction to communication. Using the FCGR, we conducted an integrated review of the available literature on genetic risk communication in HCA families. Descriptive analysis of 12 articles resulted in the development of categories describing details of the FCGR elements in the context of HCA. This review synthesizes what is known about influential factors, communication strategies, communication occurrence, and outcomes of communication in the context of HCA.