Abstract:Background: Laboratories offering cell-free DNA often reserve the right to share prenatal genetic data for research or even commercial purposes, and obtain this permission on the patient consent form. Although it is known that nonpregnant patients are often reluctant to share their genetic data for research, pregnant patients' knowledge of, and opinions about, genetic data privacy are unknown. Objective: We investigated whether pregnant patients who had already undergone cell-free DNA screening were aware that genetic data derived from cell-free DNA may be shared for research. Furthermore, we examined whether pregnant patients exposed to video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act-a federal law that mandates workplace and health insurance protections against genetic discrimination-were more willing to share cell-free DNA-related genetic data for research than pregnant patients who were unexposed. Study design: In this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04420858), English-speaking patients with singleton pregnancies who underwent cell-free DNA and subsequently presented at 17 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks of gestation for a detailed anatomy scan were randomized 1:1 to a control or intervention group. Both groups viewed an infographic about cell-free DNA. In addition, the intervention group viewed an educational video about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The primary outcomes were knowledge about, and willingness to share, prenatal genetic data from cell-free DNA by commercial laboratories for nonclinical purposes, such as research. The secondary outcomes included knowledge about existing genetic privacy laws, knowledge about the potential for reidentification of anonymized genetic data, and acceptability of various use and sharing scenarios for prenatal genetic data. Eighty-one participants per group were required for 80% power to detect an increase in willingness to share data from 60% to 80% (α=0.05). Results: A total of 747 pregnant patients were screened, and 213 patients were deemed eligible and approached for potential study participation. Of these patients, 163 (76.5%) consented and were randomized; one participant discontinued the intervention, and two participants were excluded from analysis after the intervention when it was discovered that they did not fulfill all eligibility criteria. Overall, 160 (75.1%) of those approached were included in the final analysis. Most patients in the control group (72 [90.0%]) and intervention (76 [97.4%]) group were either unsure about or incorrectly thought that cell-free DNA companies could not share prenatal genetic data for research. Participants in the intervention group were more likely to incorrectly believe that their prenatal genetic data would not be shared for nonclinical purposes than participants in the control group (28.8% in the control group vs 46.2% in the intervention; P=.03). However, video education did not increase participant willingness to share genetic data in multiple scenarios. Non-White participants were less willing than White participants to allow sharing of genetic data specifically for academic research (P<.001). Conclusion: Most participants were unaware that their prenatal genetic data may be used for nonclinical purposes. Pregnant patients who were educated about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act were not more willing to share genetic data than those who did not receive this education. Surprisingly, video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act led patients to falsely believe that their data would not be shared for research, and participants who identified as racial minorities were less willing to share genetic data. New strategies are needed to improve pregnant patients' understanding of genetic privacy.

The persistent lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) more than a decade after passage

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and workplace genetic testing: Knowledge and perceptions of employed adults in the United States

Public Awareness of Genetic Nondiscrimination Laws in Four States and Perceived Importance of Life Insurance Protections

The goldilocks conundrum: Disclosing discrimination risks in informed consent

The law of genetic privacy: applications, implications, and limitations

Exploring the Public Understanding of Basic Genetic Concepts

Research Progress and Challenges of Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Polygenic Diseases.

Evolving perspectives on genetic discrimination in health insurance among health care providers

The Key Features of a Genetic Nondiscrimination Policy: A Delphi Consensus Statement

The Key Features of a Genetic Nondiscrimination Policy

Disclosure to genetic relatives without consent - Australian genetic professionals' awareness of the health privacy law

Still using genetic data? A comparative review of Canadian life insurance application forms before and after the GNDA

The Right to Know and not to Know: Predictive Genetic Diagnosis and Non-diagnosis

Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Findings from the 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey

The Genetic Discrimination Observatory: confronting novel issues in genetic discrimination

Conflict between values and technology: perceptions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Video education about genetic privacy and patient perspectives about sharing prenatal genetic data: a randomized trial

Enabling responsible public genomics

Getting a head start: the importance of personal genetics education in high schools

Genetic counseling for fetal sex prediction by NIPT: Challenges and opportunities

Navigating the Impact of the 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule: A National Survey of U.S. Genetic Counselors