ABSTRACT
Background Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which provide an individual probabilistic estimate of genetic susceptibility to develop a disease, have shown effective risk stratification for glaucoma onset. However, there is limited best practice evidence for reporting PRS and patient-friendly reports for communicating effectively PRS are lacking. Here we developed patient-centred PRS reports for glaucoma screening based on the literature and evaluated them with participants using a qualitative research approach.
Methods We first reviewed existing PRS reports and literature on probabilistic risk communication. This informed the development of a draft glaucoma screening PRS report for a hypothetical high risk individual from the general population. We designed three versions of the report to illustrate risk using a pictograph, a pie chart and a bell curve. We then conducted semi-structured interviews to assess preference of visual risk communication aids, understanding of risk, content, format and structure of the reports. Participants were invited from an existing study, which aims to evaluate the clinical validity of glaucoma among individuals >50 years from the general population. Numeracy and literacy levels were assessed.
Results We interviewed 12 individuals (50% female, 42% university education). Numeracy (mean 2.1±0.9, range 0-3), graph literacy (mean 2.8±0.8, range 0-4) and genetic literacy (mean 24.2±6.2, range -20-+46) showed a range of levels. We analysed the reports under three main themes: visual preferences, understanding risk and reports formatting. The visual component was deemed important to understanding risk, with the pictograph being the preferred visual risk representation, followed by the pie chart and the bell curve. Participants expressed preference for absolute risk in understanding risk, along with the written content explaining the results. The importance of follow-up recommendations and time to glaucoma onset were highlighted. Participants expressed varied opinions in the level of information and the colours used, which informed revisions of the report.
Conclusions Our study revealed preferences for reporting PRS information in the context of glaucoma screening, to support the development of clinical PRS reporting. Further research is needed to assess PRS communication in other contexts and with other target audiences (e.g. referring clinicians), and its potential psychosocial impact in the wider community.
Competing Interest Statement
JEC is a co-inventor on a patent application for the use of genetic risk scores in predicting glaucoma risk. OMS, MMH and JEC hold equity in Seonix Pty Ltd.
Funding Statement
ES was supported by an Early Career Fellowship from the BrightFocus Foundation (G2022002F) and an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT2016545), JEC by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1154824), and OMS by a Snow Fellowship.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (SAC HREC) gave ethics approval for this work.
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.
Yes
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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.
