Exploring Genetic Data Across Individuals: Design and Evaluation of a Novel Comparative Report Tool.

BACKGROUND: The growth in the availability of personal genomic data to nonexperts poses multiple challenges to human-computer interaction research; data are highly sensitive, complex, and have health implications for individuals and families. However, there has been little research on how nonexpert users explore their genomic data. OBJECTIVE: We focus on how to support nonexperts in exploring and comparing their own personal genomic report with those of other people. We designed and evaluated CrossGenomics, a novel tool for comparing personal genetic reports, which enables exploration of shared and unshared genetic variants. Focusing on communicating comparative impact, rarity, and certainty, we evaluated alternative novel interactive prototypes. METHODS: We conducted 3 user studies. The first focuses on assessing the usability and understandability of a prototype that facilitates the comparison of reports from 2 family members. Following a design iteration, we studied how various prototypes support the comparison of genetic reports of a 4-person family. Finally, we evaluated the needs of early adopters-people who share their genetic reports publicly for comparing their genetic reports with that of others. RESULTS: In the first study, sunburst- and Venn-based comparisons of two genomes led to significantly higher domain comprehension, compared with the linear comparison and with the commonly used tabular format. However, results show gaps between objective and subjective comprehension, as sunburst users reported significantly lower perceived understanding and higher levels of confusion than the users of the tabular report. In the second study, users who were allowed to switch between the different comparison views presented higher comprehension levels, as well as more complex reasoning than users who were limited to a single comparison view. In the third study, 35% (17/49) reported learning something new from comparing their own data with another person's data. Users indicated that filtering and toggling between comparison views were the most useful features. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings (1) highlight features and visualizations that show strengths in facilitating user comprehension of genomic data, (2) demonstrate the value of affording users the flexibility to examine the same report using multiple views, and (3) emphasize users' needs in comparison of genomic data. We conclude with design implications for engaging nonexperts with complex multidimensional genomic data.

Social Annotation Valence: The Impact on Online Informed Consent Beliefs and Behavior.

BACKGROUND: Social media, mobile and wearable technology, and connected devices have significantly expanded the opportunities for conducting biomedical research online. Electronic consent to collecting such data, however, poses new challenges when contrasted to traditional consent processes. It reduces the participant-researcher dialogue but provides an opportunity for the consent deliberation process to move from solitary to social settings. In this research, we propose that social annotations, embedded in the consent form, can help prospective participants deliberate on the research and the organization behind it in ways that traditional consent forms cannot. Furthermore, we examine the role of the comments' valence on prospective participants' beliefs and behavior. OBJECTIVE: This study focuses specifically on the influence of annotations' valence on participants' perceptions and behaviors surrounding online consent for biomedical research. We hope to shed light on how social annotation can be incorporated into digitally mediated consent forms responsibly and effectively. METHODS: In this controlled between-subjects experiment, participants were presented with an online consent form for a personal genomics study that contained social annotations embedded in its margins. Individuals were randomly assigned to view the consent form with positive-, negative-, or mixed-valence comments beside the text of the consent form. We compared participants' perceptions of being informed and having understood the material, their trust in the organization seeking the consent, and their actual consent across conditions. RESULTS: We find that comment valence has a marginally significant main effect on participants' perception of being informed (F2=2.40, P=.07); specifically, participants in the positive condition (mean 4.17, SD 0.94) felt less informed than those in the mixed condition (mean 4.50, SD 0.69, P=.09). Comment valence also had a marginal main effect on the extent to which participants reported trusting the organization (F2=2.566, P=.08). Participants in the negative condition (mean 3.59, SD 1.14) were marginally less trusting than participants exposed to the positive condition (mean 4.02, SD 0.90, P=.06). Finally, we found that consent rate did not differ across comment valence conditions; however, participants who spent less time studying the consent form were more likely to consent when they were exposed to positive-valence comments. CONCLUSIONS: This work explores the effects of adding a computer-mediated social dimension, which inherently contains human emotions and opinions, to the consent deliberation process. We proposed that augmenting the consent deliberation process to incorporate multiple voices can enable individuals to capitalize on the knowledge of others, which brings to light questions, problems, and concerns they may not have considered on their own. We found that consent forms containing positive valence annotations are likely to lead participants to feel less informed and simultaneously more trusting of the organization seeking consent. In certain cases where participants spent little time considering the content of the consent form, participants exposed to positive valence annotations were even more likely to consent to the study. We suggest that these findings represent important considerations for the design of future electronic informed consent mechanisms.