KeywordsDisability · Precision medicine research · Return of results · Medicalization · Marginalization Abstract Purpose: Returning genetic results to research participants is gaining momentum in the USA. It is believed to be an important step in exploring the impact of efforts to translate findings from research to bedside and public health benefits. Some also hope that this practice will incentivize research participation, especially among people from historically marginalized communities who are commonly underrepresented in research. However, research participants' interest in receiving nongenomic medical and nonmedical results that may emerge from precision medicine research (PMR) is understudied and no study to date has explored the views of people with disabilities about return of genomic and nongenomic results from PMR. Methods: In a national online survey of people with disabilities, participants were queried about their interest in receiving biological, environmental, and lifestyle results from PMR (n = 1,294). Analyses describe findings for all of the participants and comparisons for key demographic characteristics and disability subgroups. Re-sults: The participants expressed high interest in biological and health-related results and less interest in other findings. However, the interest among the study participants was lower than that found in comparable studies of the general population. Moreover, this interest varied significantly across gender, race/ethnicity, and disability subgroups. Possible reasons for these differences are discussed. Conclusion: Insofar as return of results from PMR may impact translational efforts, it is important to better understand the role of sociomedical marginalization in decisions about return of results from PMR and to develop strategies to address existing barriers.

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> Precision medicine raises hope for translating genetic-based knowledge about psychiatric risks into mental health benefits by motivating health-related, risk-reducing behaviors. Teenagers (ages 14–17) are an important age-group to engage in preventive efforts but, their views about psychiatric genetics are understudied. <b><i>Method:</i></b> An online survey with a nationally representative sample of teenagers (<i>n</i> = 417) was conducted. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 handouts, 1 emphasizing the genetic underpinnings of psychiatric conditions; the other agency-oriented and focusing on gene-environment interactions. Survey questions queried their views about behavioral changes in response to psychiatric genetic risk information and expressed willingness to undertake them. Participants’ decision-making characteristics (i.e., self-efficacy, empowerment, intolerance of uncertainty, and sensation-seeking) were assessed at baseline. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Teenagers strongly valued the information provided and its potential usefulness for their mental health. Information about psychiatric genetics alone impacted views about the causes of mental illness. Contrary to our hypothesis, the type of handout did not impact participants’ expressed willingness to make behavioral changes to reduce their risk of developing a psychiatric condition, but their sense of empowerment played a key role in their responses. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Educating teenagers about gene-environment interactions may help facilitate the translational efforts of precision psychiatry. Research with teenagers across racial/ethnic groups, especially those with family histories, is needed to better understand the factors that impact teenagers’ empowerment in psychiatric genomic settings and to identify measures, including the best enablers of empowerment (e.g., educators, parents), which would allow them to reap the benefits of precision psychiatry.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are promising for identifying common variant‐related inheritance for psychiatric conditions but their integration into clinical practice depends on their clinical utility and psychiatrists' understanding of PRS. Our online survey explored these issues with 276 professionals working in psychiatric genetics (RR: 19%). Overall, participants demonstrated knowledge of how to interpret PRS results. Their performance on knowledge‐based questions was positively correlated with participants' self‐reported familiarity with PRS (r = 0.21, p = 0.0006) although differences were not statistically significant (Wald Chi‐square = 3.29, df = 1, p = 0.07). However, only 48.9% of all participants answered all knowledge questions correctly. Many participants (56.5%), especially researchers (42%), indicated having at least occasional conversations about the role of genetics in psychiatric conditions with patients and/or family members. Most participants (62.7%) indicated that PRS are not yet sufficiently robust for assessment of susceptibility to schizophrenia; most significant obstacles were low predictive power and lack of population diversity in available PRS (selected, respectively, by 53.6% and 29.3% of participants). Nevertheless, 89.8% of participants were optimistic about the use of PRS in the next 10 years, suggesting a belief that current shortcomings could be addressed. Our findings inform about the perceptions of psychiatric professionals regarding PRS and the application of PRS in psychiatry.

No abstract