Purpose: Recruitment of participants from diverse backgrounds is crucial to the generalizability of genetic research, but has proven challenging. We retrospectively evaluated recruitment methods used for a study on return of genetic results. Methods: The costs of study design, development, and participant enrollment were calculated, and the characteristics of the participants enrolled through the seven recruitment methods were examined. Results: A total of 1118 participants provided consent, a blood sample, and questionnaire data. The estimated cost across recruitment methods ranged from $579 to $1666 per participant and required a large recruitment team. Recruitment methods using flyers and staff networks were the most cost-efficient and resulted in the highest completion rate. Targeted sampling that emphasized the importance of Latino/a participation, utilization of translated materials, and in-person recruitments contributed to enrolling a demographically diverse sample. Conclusions: Although all methods were deployed in the same hospital or neighborhood and shared the same staff, each recruitment method was different in terms of cost and characteristics of the enrolled participants, suggesting the importance of carefully choosing the recruitment methods based on the desired composition of the final study sample. This analysis provides information about the effectiveness and cost of different methods to recruit adults for genetic research.

With the broader introduction of genomic medicine in research and clinical care, an increasing number of persons are offered genetic testing. Many factors, including genetic literacy, may impact the utilization of genetic results by patients and their families.We developed a rapid, self-administered measure of genetic literacy, called Genetic Literacy Fast Test (GeneLiFT). We next evaluated the association of GeneLiFT scores with the comprehension of limitations of genomic medicine in participants undergoing genetic testing in the NIH-sponsored eMERGE III study at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. All participants underwent genetic screening for variants in 74 actionable genes associated with adult-onset disorders. A diverse cohort of 724 participants completed the survey (60% women, 45% less than 40 years old, and 53% self-reported White non-Hispanic ancestry). The GeneLiFT was validated using known group differences based on education, health literacy, and numeracy, and with questions assessing genetic knowledge. GeneLiFT identified multiple standard genetics terms, that is, jargon, not recognized by more than 50% of participants (including actionability and pathogenicity). Low genetic literacy, identified in 210 participants (29%), was significantly associated with poor understanding of the limitations of genetic testing (p-values < 10 -9 ). This association was independent of education, health literacy, and numeracy levels, highlighting the importance of directly measuring genetic literacy.Low genetic literacy was also associated with low satisfaction with the informed consent process. GeneLiFT is a practical tool for rapid assessment of genetic literacy in large studies or clinical care. GeneLiFT will allow future research to efficiently assess the role of genetic literacy on the clinical impact of genetic testing.

The original version of this Article contained an error in the undergraduate degree awarded to the author Ian Halim, which was incorrectly given as BS. This has now been corrected to BA in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.