Who defines the “personal utility” of genetic and genomic testing? A systematic review

Introduction

As clinical use of genetic and genomic testing grows, clinicians and researchers are increasingly recognizing that, beyond clinical utility, these tests provide substantial personal utility to patients and families.¹ In response, researchers have employed diverse methods to define and measure the broad range of subjective outcomes associated with personal utility in this context. Key dimensions of personal utility have captured psychosocial benefits, facilitated social support, improved care coordination, and information for reproductive and other healthcare decision-making.^1,2

It is essential to ensure that the voices of patients, caregivers from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds are included in defining and measuring personal utility. While the need to diversify genomic datasets has been widely recognized,³ the parallel need to include diverse perspectives when defining the value of genomic data for patients and families remains unexplored. Recent systematic reviews on this topic have not reported the sociodemographic makeup of participants included in the reviewed studies.^1,2 To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed research focused on defining and measuring the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing to determine the underlying sociodemographic characteristics of study participants.

Materials and Methods

Our systematic review utilized and updated a widely-cited 2017 systematic review by Kohler et al on the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing.¹ We updated Kohler et al’s original search string to account for changing terminology over time (e.g., including “perceived” as well as “personal” utility) and conducted a new search for studies subsequently published in the same databases. Additional methodological information and the full details of our search string are provided in Supplementary Appendix 1.

Studies identified were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Eligibility criteria included:

1. Focused on perspectives of patients, their family members, or the general public;

2. Focused on any clinical genetic or genomic test;

3. Provided empirical data on participants’ perspectives of the “utility” of genetic or genomic tests;

4. Published between August 2016 (the date of Kohler et al’s final search) and January 2022;

5. Published in English in a full-text form;

6. Conducted in the United States.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Three authors extracted and reviewed study and participant characteristics including: number of participants, study location (U.S. or international), primary methodology (qualitative or quantitative), race and ethnicity, gender, income, and education data. Methods for harmonizing sociodemographic categories are provided in Supplementary Appendix 1, and the complete data dictionary is provided in Supplementary Appendix 2. We consolidated individual-level data across all studies for descriptive analyses and used a Pearson’s chi-squared test to compare demographic characteristics by study methodology, with a threshold of p<0.05 for statistical significance. The complete analytic dataset is provided in Supplementary Appendix 3.

Results

Our final review included 53 eligible studies with 13,315 total participants (Figure 1). Of these, 32 studies (60.4%) used primarily qualitative methodology, although these accounted for only 14.1% (n=1,877) of all participants. A descriptive overview is provided in Figure 2, and a summary of comparisons in Table 1. Additional descriptive details are provided in Supplementary Appendix 4.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: PRISMA Diagram

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Comparison of demographics and reporting across studies

Discussion

Our results suggest that the literature on the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing in the United States has disproportionately captured the perspectives of a narrow subset of the population – specifically White, well-educated women with above-average household incomes. These findings are particularly concerning given recent research suggesting important differences in the perceived utility of genetic and genomic tests across participants with diverse backgrounds.⁵ These data also are not representative of the U.S. population. In the U.S., only 37.9% of adults have a Bachelor’s degree, only 61% identify as White, approximately half are women and, of course, 50% are below the median income.

In terms of gender and income, these trends appear even more pronounced in qualitative studies of utility, which is concerning given the foundational role these types of studies play in defining the concept of personal utility. In addition, our review identified only 274 Black participants in any eligible quantitative study of utility, compared to 7,950 non-Hispanic White participants, and nearly half (n=41) of all Black participants in qualitative studies came from a single study specifically focused the perspectives of Black patients.⁶ Interestingly, although many other studies reviewed include all or nearly all White participants, these studies don’t state an explicit focus on understanding the perspectives of White patients. Such patterns only serve to normalize and reinforce narratives prioritizing White perspectives.

Further, information on education and income are either not reported or missing for up to 35% of all study participants. Given the potential for such sociodemographic characteristics to influence the personal utility of genetics and genomics, future studies should ensure robust and systematic collection of participants’ sociodemographic characteristics.

Conclusion

The results of our systematic review suggest that our understanding of the utility of genetics and genomics is disproportionately based on the perspectives of White women with high income and education. In order to achieve the National Human Genome Research Institute’s goal of “equitable use of genomics in healthcare that avoids exacerbating and strives towards reducing health disparities,”⁷ we need not only to collect diverse genomic data but also to understand perspectives on the value of these data for diverse patients and families.

Disclosures

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. M.C.H is supported by a grant from National Human Genome Research Institute K01HG011341. J.L.Y is supported by American Heart Association grant number 19SFRN34830054.