An international workshop was held in Leuven, Belgium, on June 19–20, 2023, to discuss the communication of genetic risk information within families in the context of personalized prevention. Organized as part of the Horizon Europe project PROPHET (PeRsOnalised Prevention roadmap for the future HEalThcare in Europe), the event gathered interdisciplinary stakeholders to explore the benefits and challenges of various policy approaches for returning genetic test results with implications for family members. Five key themes emerged from the discussions: (1) recognizing family communication as an ongoing process, (2) adopting a family-centered approach rather than an individual one, (3) clarifying roles and responsibilities in the communication process, (4) addressing the lack of clear guidelines and policies, and (5) ensuring sufficient resources. To enhance family communication of genetic risk information, participants emphasized the importance of improving pre-test counseling and follow-up procedures, implementing policies to clarify roles and responsibilities, and providing training for healthcare professionals both within and outside genetic services.

In susceptible patients, COVID-19 causes life-threatening disease driven by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. We have previously shown that multiple common host genetic variants are significantly associated with susceptibility to critical Covid-19, and in one case, we demonstrated that such variants can inform development of new, effective drug treatment. Here we report an association analysis of whole-genome sequences (WGS) from 11,423 cases from the GenOMICC study and 60,628 controls, together with meta-analyses with available genome-wide data. We identify a rare association signal at SLC50A1, primarily driven by a missense variant rs147850817 (1:155138217:G:T, Arg201Leu) that may interfere with transport function, and we identify four common association signals near ARF1, ZNF462, KLF13 and MVP genes. Finally, we build a WGS-derived polygenic risk score (PRS) for critical Covid-19, which offers only marginal improvement in risk estimation for the general population but may provide clinically-valuable discrimination for extreme susceptibility. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Protocols ### Funding Statement GenOMICC was funded by Sepsis Research (the Fiona Elizabeth Agnew Trust), the Intensive Care Society, a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship (J.K.Baillie, 223164/Z/21/Z), the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Illumina, LifeArc, the Medical Research Council, UKRI, a BBSRC Institute Strategic Program Support Grant to the Roslin Institute (BBS/E/D/20002172, BBS/E/D/10002070 and BBS/E/D/30002275) and UKRI grants MC PC 20004, MC PC 19025, MC PC 1905, and MRNO2995X/1. ADB acknowledges funding from the Wellcome PhD training fellowship for clinicians (204979/Z/16/Z), the Edinburgh Clinical Academic Track (ECAT) programme. This research is supported in part by the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref MC PC 20029). This study owes a great deal to the National Institute for Healthcare Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) and the Chief Scientist's Office (Scotland), who facilitate recruitment into research studies in NHS hospitals, and to the global ISARIC and InFACT consortia. This work forms part of the translational research portfolio of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Barts Biomedical Research Centre. T.M. is supported by Cancer Research UK grant DRCRPG-May23/100002 to C. Siebold. Genomics England: This research was made possible through access to data in the National Genomic Research Library, which is managed by Genomics England Limited (a wholly owned company of the Department of Health and Social Care). The National Genomic Research Library (\url{https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/research}) holds data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and data collected as part of their participation in research. The National Genomic Research Library is funded by the National Institute for Health Research and NHS England. The Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council have also funded research infrastructure. REACT: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) - REACT-Genomics England (REACT-GE) (MR/V030841/1) and REACT-Long COVID (REACT-LC) (COV-LT-0040). The REACT study was funded by the UK Department of Health and Social Care with supplemental funding from the Huo Family Foundation. ### 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: GenOMICC was approved by the following research ethics committees: Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (15/SS/0110) and Coventry and Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (19/WM/0247). 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 All other data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

We conducted an exploratory survey of genetic counselors internationally to assess similarities and differences in reported practice activities. Between November 2018 and January 2020 we conducted a mass emailing to an estimated 5600 genetic counselors in different countries and regions. We obtained 189 useable responses representing 22 countries, which are included in an aggregate manner. Data from countries with 10 or more responses, comprising 82% of the total (N = 156), are the primary focus of this report: Australia (13), Canada (26), USA (59), UK (17), France (12), Japan (19) and India (10). Twenty activities were identified as common (≥74%) across these countries, encompassing most subcategories of genetic counseling activity. Activities with most frequent endorsement include: reviewing referrals and medical records and identifying genetic testing options as part of case preparation; taking family and medical histories; performing and sharing risk assessment; and educating clients about basic genetic information, test options, outcomes and implications, including management recommendations on the basis of the test results. Genetic counselors also consistently establish rapport, tailor the educational process, facilitate informed decision making and recognize factors that may impact the counseling interaction. The least endorsed activities were in the Medical History category. Notable differences between countries were observed in the endorsement of 33 activities, primarily in the Contracting and Establishing Rapport, Family History, Medical History, Assessing Patients Psychosocially and Providing Psychosocial Support categories. Generalizations about international practice patterns are limited by the low response rate. However, this study is, to our knowledge, the first to systematically compare the clinical practice and specific activities of genetic counselors working in different countries.

INTRODUCTION:The National Health Service (NHS) in England is the first to offer whole genome sequencing (WGS) as part of standard care. As a high-income country with a universal healthcare system, England contributes a valuable perspective to global developments in WGS. METHODS:We used an implementation science approach with mixed methods to characterise delivery of WGS for paediatric rare diseases: observations and field notes of consent appointments in clinical genetics and mainstream settings and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews with the clinical team. Process maps were developed for each department to identify similarities and variations between sites and thematic analysis of interview data to understand barriers and facilitators. RESULTS:Data collection occurred in 12 departments (7 genetic, 3 neurology, 1 cardiology, and 1 general paediatric) across 7 NHS Trusts. 26 observations of 21 healthcare professionals were conducted, alongside 19 follow-up interviews. Two master maps were developed - one for clinical genetics and one for the mainstream. We identified 11 steps involved in delivering WGS, including 9 variations and 9 similarities. We identified most variation in the processes related to the "who," "when," "how," and "where" as these were aspects that could be adapted to fit into the specific set-up of the department. Barriers included reluctance to uptake in the mainstream and difficulties tracking samples. CONCLUSION:Recommendations include developing standard operating procedures and hiring healthcare professionals responsible for facilitating consent alongside administrative aspects. These would reduce the burden on clinical geneticists and improve turnaround times as well as contribute to streamlining and standardisation of the service.

Background: The Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) was launched in 2018 in England to create a step-change in the use of genomics in the NHS, including offering whole genome sequencing (WGS) as part of routine care. In this qualitative study on pediatric rare disease diagnosis, we used an implementation science framework to identify enablers and barriers which have influenced rollout.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven participants tasked with designing the GMS and 14 tasked with leading the implementation across the seven Genomic Medicine Service Alliances (GMSAs) and/or Genomic Laboratory Hubs (GLHs) between October 2021 and February 2022.Results: Overall, those involved in delivering the service strongly support its aims and ambitions. Challenges include: 1) concerns around the lack of trained and available workforce (clinicians and scientists) to seek consent from patients, interpret findings and communicate results; 2) the lack of a digital, coordinated infrastructure in place to support and standardize delivery with knock-on effects including onerous administrative aspects required to consent patients and order WGS tests; 3) that the “mainstreaming agenda”, whilst considered important, encountered reluctance to become engaged from those who did not see it as a priority or viewed it as being politically rather than clinically driven; 4) the timelines and targets set for the GMS were perceived by some as too ambitious. Interviewees discussed local adaptations and strategies employed to address the various challenges they had encountered, including 1) capacity-building, 2) employing genomic associates and other support staff to support the consent and test ordering process, 3) having “genomic champions” embedded in mainstream services to impart knowledge and best practice, 4) enhancing collaboration between genetic and mainstream specialties, 5) building evaluation into the service and 6) co-creating services with patients and the public.Conclusion: Our findings highlight the challenges of implementing system-wide change within a complex healthcare system. Local as well as national solutions can undoubtedly address many of these barriers over time.

We used cross-sectional surveys to compare the knowledge, attitudes, and decision regret of participants who had consented for genome sequencing (GS) for rare disease diagnosis in the 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP) across two timepoints (at the time of consenting for GS (T1) and 12–18 months later (T2)). At T1, participants ( n = 504) completed a survey that included measures of general knowledge of GS (“Knowledge of Genome Sequencing” (KOGS)), specific knowledge of GS and attitudes towards GS (“General attitudes” and “Specific attitudes”). At T2, participants ( n = 296) completed these same assessments (apart from the specific knowledge scale) together with an assessment of decision regret towards GS (“Decisional Regret Scale”). At 12–18 months after consenting for GS, participants’ basic knowledge of GS had remained stable. General knowledge of GS varied across topics; concepts underlying more general information about genetics were better understood than the technical details of genomic testing. Attitudes towards GS at T2 were generally positive, and feelings towards GS (both positive and negative) remained unchanged. However, those who were more positive about the test at the outset had greater specific knowledge (as opposed to general knowledge) of GS. Finally, although the majority of participants indicated feeling little regret towards undergoing GS, those with low positive attitude and high negative attitude about GS at T1 reported greater decision regret at T2. Careful assessment of patient knowledge about and attitudes towards GS at the time of offering testing is crucial for supporting informed decision making and mitigating later regret.

The Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the potential of genomic technologies for the detection and surveillance of infectious diseases. Pathogen genomics is likely to play a major role in the future of research and clinical implementation of genomic technologies. However, unlike human genetics, the specific ethical and social challenges associated with the implementation of infectious disease genomics has received comparatively little attention. In this paper, we contribute to this literature, focusing on the potential consequences for individuals and communities of the use of these technologies. We concentrate on areas of challenges related to privacy, stigma, discrimination and the return of results in the cases of the surveillance of known pathogens, metagenomics and host genomics.

The way we "talk"about genetics plays a vital role in whether public audiences feel at ease in having conversations about it. Our research explored whether there was any difference between "what we say"and "what people hear"when providing information about genetics to community groups who are known to be missing from genomics datasets. We conducted 16 focus groups with 100 members of the British public who had limited familiarity with genomics and self-identified as belonging to communities with Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani ancestry as well as people of various ancestral heritage who came from disadvantaged socio-economic back-grounds. Participants were presented with spoken messages explaining genomics and their responses to these were analyzed. Results indicated that starting conversations that framed genomics through its potential benefits were met with cynicism and skepticism. Par-ticipants cited historical and present injustices as reasons for this as well as mistrust of private companies and the government. Instead, more productive conversations led with an acknowledgment that some people have questions-and valid concerns-about genomics, before introducing any of the details about the science. To diversify genomic datasets, we need to linguistically meet public audiences where they are at. Our research has demonstrated that everyday talk about genomics, used by researchers and clinicians alike, is received differently than it is likely intended. We may inadvertently be further disengaging the very audiences that diversity programs aim to reach.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image sizeThis article refers to:The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by Wellcome Trust.

In the 20 years since the initial sequencing of the human genome, genomics has become increasingly relevant to nursing. We sought to chart the current state of genomics in nursing by conducting a systematic scoping review of the literature in four databases (2012–2022). The included articles were categorized according to the Cochrane Collaboration outcome domains/sub-domains, and thematic analysis was employed to identify key topical areas to summarize the state of the science. Of 8532 retrieved articles, we identified 232 eligible articles. The articles primarily reported descriptive studies from the United States and other high-income countries (191/232, 82%). More than half (126/232, 54.3%) aligned with the “healthcare provider oriented outcomes” outcome domain. Three times as many articles related to the “knowledge and understanding” sub-domain compared to the “consultation process” subdomain (96 vs. 30). Five key areas of focus were identified, including “nursing practice” (50/126, 40%), “genetic counseling and screening” (29/126, 23%), “specialist nursing” (21/126, 17%), “nurse preparatory education” (17/126, 13%), and “pharmacogenomics” (9/126, 7%). Only 42/126 (33%) articles reported interventional studies. To further integrate genomics into nursing, study findings indicate there is a need to move beyond descriptive work on knowledge and understanding to focus on interventional studies and implementation of genomics into nursing practice.

As detailed in its flagship report, Genome UK, the UK government recognises the vital role that broad public engagement across whole populations plays in the field of genomics. However, there is limited evidence about how to do this at scale. Most public audiences do not feel actively connected to science, are often unsure of the relevance to their lives and rarely talk to their family and friends about it; we term this dis-connection a ‘disengaged public audience’. We use a narrative review to explore: (i) UK attitudes towards genetics and genomics and what may influence reluctance to engage with these topics; (ii) innovative public engagement approaches that have been used to bring diverse public audiences into conversations about the technology. Whilst we have found some novel engagement methods that have used participatory arts, film, social media and deliberative methods, there is no clear agreement on best practice. We did not find a consistently used, evidence-based strategy for delivering public engagement about genomics across diverse and broad populations, nor a specific method that is known to encourage engagement from groups that have historically felt (in terms of perception) and been (in reality) excluded from genomic research. We argue there is a need for well-defined, tailor-made engagement strategies that clearly articulate the audience, the purpose and the proposed impact of the engagement intervention. This needs to be coupled with robust evaluation frameworks to build the evidence-base for population-level engagement strategies.

As detailed in its flagship report, Genome UK, the UK government recognises the vital role that broad public engagement across whole populations plays in the field of genomics. However, there is limited evidence about how to do this at scale. Most public audiences do not feel actively connected to science, are oftenunsure of the relevance to their lives and rarely talk to their family and friends about; we term this dis-connection a 'disengaged public audience'. We use a narrative review to explore: (i) UK attitudes towards genetics and genomics and what may influence reluctance to engage with these topics; (ii) innovative public engagement approaches that have been used to bring diverse public audiences into conversations about the technology. Whilst we have found some novel engagement methods that have used participatory arts, film, social media and deliberative methods, there is no clear agreement on best practice. We did not find a consistently used, evidence-based strategy for delivering public engagement about genomics across diverse and broad populations, nor a specific method that is known to encourage engagement from groups that have historically felt (in terms of perception) and been (in reality) excluded from genomic research. We argue there is a need for well-defined, tailor-made engagement strategies that clearly articulate the audience, the purpose and the proposed impact of the engagement intervention. This needs to be coupled with robust evaluation frameworks to build the evidence-base for population-level engagement strategies.

Aim: This article describes results from a survey targeting healthcare professionals (HCPs) leading newborn screening (NBS) initiatives in Europe. The survey was developed within the framework of a dedicated working group set up by the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) to gather collective efforts relating to NBS. The objectives of the survey were to gain a better understanding of approaches being tested for the expansion of NBS and to raise awareness of the significant momentum across Europe to evaluate novel technologies for use in future NBS programs. Methods: A web-based survey including 57 questions was developed to gather information about genomic newborn screening initiatives in Europe that are using next-generation sequencing (NGS) as a first-tier test. Responses were analyzed qualitatively, and aggregated results are presented herein. The identity of some initiatives is not presented to preserve confidentiality. Results: The findings of the survey indicated that most initiatives are in the planning stage and have not yet started. Although all 14 studies are heterogeneous in design, there is broad consensus that NGS approaches to NBS will, in the short term, be implemented in parallel with current screening programs. The results of this survey can be used to inform the design of studies still in the early planning stages. Conclusion: Here, we provide an overview of NGS-based initiatives in Europe. Importantly, the initiatives described herein will generate evidence to evaluate the utility and feasibility of NGS approaches to NBS, thereby shortening the pathway to responsible implementation of NGS in NBS and informing future research efforts.

In this mixed methods study, a survey and in-depth interviews were used to explore whether decision regret and the psychological impact of receiving genome sequencing (GS) results differed between parents and patients, and between those who received a genetic diagnosis and those who did not. Participants (n = 77) completed a survey that included the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) and an adaptation of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) at least 12 months after consenting for GS for rare disease diagnosis in the 100,000 Genomes Project. Survey participants were invited to take part in an interview and 39 agreed; 12 with a diagnosis, 5 with variants of uncertain significance, and 19 with no pathogenic findings identified. Both survey and interview findings indicated that decision regret was low. DRS scores revealed no differences in levels of regret between parents and patients, or between those with a diagnosis and those without. Though MICRA scores indicated minimal evidence of negative psychological impacts of receiving GS results, subscale analysis revealed greater distress and uncertainty for parents compared to patients. Receiving a diagnosis was found not to influence MICRA scores, supporting interview findings of both positive and negative emotional and psychological impacts irrespective of a genetic diagnosis. Our findings have implications for policy and practice as GS is integrated into the UK and worldwide; notably, that expectation-setting is critical when offering GS, and that post-test counselling is important regardless of the GS result received, with parents perhaps needing additional emotional support.