Premium
Community dissemination and genetic research: Moving beyond results reporting
Author(s) -
Trinidad Susan Brown,
Ludman Evette J.,
Hopkins Scarlett,
James Rosalina D.,
Hoeft Theresa J.,
Kinegak Annie,
Lupie Henry,
Kinegak Ralph,
Boyer Bert B.,
Burke Wylie
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
american journal of medical genetics part a
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.064
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1552-4833
pISSN - 1552-4825
DOI - 10.1002/ajmg.a.37028
Subject(s) - cognitive reframing , relevance (law) , community based participatory research , participatory action research , information dissemination , public relations , citizen journalism , focus group , sociology , psychology , political science , world wide web , social psychology , computer science , anthropology , law
The community‐based participatory research (CBPR) literature notes that researchers should share study results with communities. In the case of human genetic research, results may be scientifically interesting but lack clinical relevance. The goals of this study were to learn what kinds of information community members want to receive about genetic research and how such information should be conveyed. We conducted eight focus group discussions with Yup'ik Alaska Native people in southwest Alaska (N = 60) and 6 (N = 61) with members of a large health maintenance organization in Seattle, Washington. Participants wanted to receive genetic information they “could do something about” and wanted clinically actionable information to be shared with their healthcare providers; they also wanted researchers to share knowledge about other topics of importance to the community. Although Alaska Native participants were generally less familiar with western scientific terms and less interested in web‐based information sources, the main findings were the same in Alaska and Seattle: participants wished for ongoing dialogue, including opportunities for informal, small‐group conversations, and receiving information that had local relevance. Effective community dissemination is more than a matter of presenting study results in lay language. Community members should be involved in both defining culturally appropriate communication strategies and in determining which information should be shared. Reframing dissemination as a two‐way dialogue, rather than a one‐way broadcast, supports the twin aims of advancing scientific knowledge and achieving community benefit. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.