We describe the rationale, development, and usability testing for an integrated e-learning tool and decision aid for parents facing decisions about genome-wide sequencing (GWS) for their children with a suspected genetic condition. The online tool, DECIDE, is designed to provide decision-support and to promote high quality decisions about undergoing GWS with or without return of optional incidental finding results. DECIDE works by integrating educational material with decision aids. Users may tailor their learning by controlling both the amount of information and its format - text and diagrams and/or short videos. The decision aid guides users to weigh the importance of various relevant factors in their own lives and circumstances. After considering the pros and cons of GWS and return of incidental findings, DECIDE summarizes the user's responses and apparent preferred choices. In a usability study of 16 parents who had already chosen GWS after conventional genetic counselling, all participants found DECIDE to be helpful. Many would have been satisfied to use it alone to guide their GWS decisions, but most would prefer to have the option of consulting a health care professional as well to aid their decision. Further testing is necessary to establish the effectiveness of using DECIDE as an adjunct to or instead of conventional pre-test genetic counselling for clinical genome-wide sequencing.

Clinical use of genome-wide sequencing (GWS) requires pre-test genetic counseling, but the availability of genetic counseling is limited. We developed an interactive online decision-support tool, DECIDE, to make genetic counseling, patient education, and decision support more readily available. We performed a non-inferiority trial comparing DECIDE to standard genetic counseling to assess the clinical value of DECIDE for pre-GWS counseling. One hundred and six parents considering GWS for their children with epilepsy were randomized to conventional genetic counseling or DECIDE. Following the intervention, we measured parents' knowledge and empowerment and asked their opinions about using DECIDE. Both DECIDE and conventional genetic counseling significantly increased parents' knowledge, with no difference between groups. Empowerment also increased but by less than 2% in each group. Parents liked using DECIDE and found it useful; 81% would recommend it to others; 49% wished to use it along with a genetic counselor; 26% of parents preferred to see a genetic counselor; 7% preferred DECIDE alone; and 18% had no preference. DECIDE appears equivalent to genetic counseling at conveying information. In addition, it was highly acceptable to the majority of study participants, many of whom indicated that it was useful to their decision-making. Use of DECIDE as a pre-test tool may extend genetic counseling resources.

Compared to European ancestral groups, Indigenous Canadians are more likely to have uninterpretable genome‐wide sequencing results due to non‐representation in reference databases. We began a conversation with Indigenous Canadians to raise awareness and give voice to this issue. We co‐created a video explaining genomic non‐representation that included diverse Indigenous view‐points. We audio‐recorded the focus groups including 30 First Nations, Métis, and Inuit individuals living in Greater Vancouver. After watching an introductory video explaining genomic testing, participants discussed issues surrounding collecting Indigenous genomic data, its control, and usage. Transcripts were analyzed, and participants’ quotes representing main themes were incorporated into the introductory video. Indigenous participants discussed data interpretation and gave approval for quote usage. The 20 participants who provided feedback concurred with the thematic interpretation: Systemic racism interlaced most conversations, particularly within the theme of trust. Themes of governance emphasized privacy and fear of discrimination. Some participants thought a separate, Indigenous‐controlled database was essential; others recognized advantages of international databases. The theme of implementation included creative ideas to collect Indigenous genomes, but prior approval from Indigenous leaders was emphasized. The final video (https://youtu.be/-wivIBDjoi8) was shared with participants to use as they wish to promote awareness and ongoing discussion of genomic diagnostic inequity.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative approach in which clinicians educate, support, and guide patients as they make informed, value-congruent decisions. SDM improves patients' health-related outcomes through increasing knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and enhancing experience of care. We measured SDM in genetic counselling appointments with 27 pregnant women who were at increased risk to have a baby with a genetic abnormality. The eight experienced genetic counsellors who participated had no specific SDM training and were unaware that SDM was being assessed. Audio transcripts of appointments were scored using 'Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making' (OPTION). Patients' anxiety and decisional conflict were also assessed. The genetic counsellors' mean OPTION score was 42.4% (SD 9.0%; possible range 0-100%). Specific SDM behaviours that scored highest included introducing the concept of equipoise and listing all options with their pros and cons. Behaviours that scored lowest included eliciting patients' preferred approach to receiving information and desired degree of involvement in decision-making. Patients' levels of anxiety and decisional conflict were unassociated with genetic counsellors' OPTION scores. Some SDM behaviours were better demonstrated in this prenatal genetic counselling study than others. Formal training of genetic counsellors in SDM may enhance use of this approach in their professional practice.

No abstract