Abstract
Background While genetics has been incorporated into various subspecialties of medicine for some time, the significance of genetic research and testing in understanding the fundamental mechanisms of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) and formulating effective treatment approaches has only recently come to the forefront. We aimed to explore how attitudes toward genetic research among clinical and research teams impacted the engagement in genetic research and the integration of genetic insights into clinical practice.
Methods Participants were selected from the National Institute for Health Research BioResource Rare Diseases study (NBR) and the Cohort study of idiopathic and heritable PAH (the PAH Cohort), representing a range of roles, ages, genders, and mutation statuses. We conducted a total of 53 semi-structured interviews and focus groups involving a total of 63 patients, clinicians, and researchers from nine UK PH centres. Following the principles of Grounded Theory, interview transcripts were thematically coded by two authors using MAXQDA (2022) software. In this paper, we focus on the researchers’, clinicians’ and study team’s perspectives.
Results From the interview data, several key themes emerged, ranging from study design, recruitment and consent procedures to the return of individual genetic results. Additionally, participants reflected on both the successes of these studies and the future directions of genetic research. The analysis highlighted the critical importance of fostering collaborative networks firmly rooted in existing clinical and research infrastructure in rare disease study setups. Furthermore, the significance of trust-building, personalised communication, and transparency among stakeholders was underscored. The study offered valuable insights into the motivating and hindering factors to participant recruitment and consent procedures. Lastly, the findings gathered from processes surrounding the return of individual genetic results, genetic counselling, and the recruitment of relatives provided invaluable lessons regarding the integration of genetics into clinical practice.
Conclusions This in-depth analysis yields a crucial understanding of attitudes to genetic research among various stakeholders and sheds light on the complexities of genetic research and the evidence-practice gap.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The RAPID-PAH study was supported by the Biomedical Research Centre (Cardiovascular theme) and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association UK. Dr Emilia M. Swietlik is supported by the BHF CRE Career Development Fellowship grant. The UK National Cohort of Idiopathic and Heritable Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the British Heart Foundation (BHF; SP/12/12/29836 and SP/18/10/33975), the BHF Cambridge Centre of Cardiovascular Research Excellence, and the UK Medical Research Council (MR/K020919/1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from the North of Scotland Research Ethics Service (REC: 22/NS/0127).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
Anonymised and analysed data from this study can be made available for collaborative work upon request. However, individual data cannot be provided.
