Development and evaluation of patient-centred polygenic risk score reports for glaucoma screening

Abstract

BackgroundPolygenic 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsWe 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. ConclusionsOur 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.