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.

Protecting Privacy of Pregnant and LGBTQ+ Research Participants

An Assessment of Perspectives and Concerns Among Research Participants of Childbearing Age Regarding the Health-Relatedness of Data, Online Data Privacy, and Donating Data to Researchers: Survey Study

Equitable Representation of Pregnant and Lactating Women in Clinical Research: A Historical Review and Critical Analysis of Proposed Legislation

Data, Discrimination, and Harm: LGBTQI People Left Behind

Including Pregnant and Lactating Women in Clinical Research

Balancing the Interests of Patient Data Protection and Medication Safety Monitoring in a Public-Private Partnership

Ethical issues in therapeutic use and research in pregnant and breastfeeding women

Perspectives on Privacy in the Post-Roe Era: A Mixed-Methods of Machine Learning and Qualitative Analyses of Tweets

Importance of Inclusion of Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women in COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials

Coming Out to Play: Privacy, Data Protection, Children’s Health, and COVID-19 Research

ACOG Committee Statement No. 9: Ethical Considerations for Increasing Inclusivity in Research Participants

Special population considerations and regulatory affairs for clinical research

Legal dissemination protections in community-based participatory health equity research

Public perspectives on increased data sharing in health research in the context of the 2023 National Institutes of Health Data Sharing Policy

Eliminating gender bias in biomedical research requires fair inclusion of pregnant women and gender diverse people

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

Certificates of confidentiality: privileging research data

Mobile Research Applications and State Data Protection Statutes

Post- Dobbs Challenges in Research and Patient Protections

Individual privacy versus public good: protecting confidentiality in health research

A Qualitative Study to Develop a Privacy and Nondiscrimination Best Practice Framework for Personalized Wellness Programs