Informed decision-making among students analyzing their personal genomes on a whole genome sequencing course: a longitudinal cohort study.

Sanderson SC, Linderman MD, Kasarskis A, Bashir A, Diaz GA, Mahajan M, Shah H, Wasserstein M, Zinberg RE, Zweig M, Schadt EE.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Multiple laboratories now offer clinical whole genome sequencing (WGS). We anticipate WGS becoming routinely used in research and clinical practice. Many institutions are exploring how best to educate genetics and other professionals about WGS. Providing students on WGS courses with the option to analyze their own genome sequence is one strategy that might enhance students' engagement and motivation to learn about personal genomes. However, if this option is presented to students, it is vital they make informed decisions, do not feel pressured into analyzing their own genomes by their course directors or peers, and feel free to analyze a third-party genome if they prefer. We therefore developed a 26-hour introductory genomics course in part to help students make informed decisions about whether to receive personal WGS data in a subsequent advanced genomics course. In the advanced course, they had the option to receive their own personal genome data, or an anonymous genome, at no financial cost to them. Our primary aims were to examine whether students made informed decisions regarding analyzing their personal genomes, and whether there was evidence that the introductory course enabled the students to make a more informed decision.

METHODS:

This was a longitudinal cohort study in which students (n = 19) completed questionnaires assessing their intentions, informed decision-making, attitudes and knowledge before (T1) and after (T2) the introductory course, and before the advanced course (T3). Informed decision-making was assessed using the Decisional Conflict Scale.

RESULTS:

At the start of the introductory course (T1), most (17/19) students intended to receive their personal WGS data in the subsequent course, but many expressed conflict around this decision. Decisional conflict decreased after the introductory course (T2) indicating increased informed decision-making, and did not change before the advanced course (T3). This suggests it was the introductory course content rather than simply time passing that had the effect. In the advanced course, all (19/19) students opted to receive their personal WGS data. No changes in technical knowledge of genomics were observed. Overall attitudes towards WGS were broadly positive.

CONCLUSIONS:

Providing students with intensive introductory education about WGS may help them make informed decisions about whether or not to work with their personal WGS data in the educational setting.