Search

The existence of pronounced differences in health outcomes between US populations is a problem of moral significance and public health urgency. Pursuing research on genetic contributors to such disparities, despite striking data on the fundamental role of social factors, has been controversial. Still, advances in genomic science are providing an understanding of disease biology at a level of precision not previously possible. The potential for genomic strategies to help in addressing population-level disparities therefore needs to be carefully evaluated. Using 3 examples from current research, we argue that the best way to maximize the benefits of population-based genomic investigations, and mitigate potential harms, is to direct research away from the identification of genetic causes of disparities and instead focus on applying genomic methodologies to the development of clinical and public health tools with the potential to ameliorate healthcare inequities, direct population-level health interventions or inform public policy. Such a transformation will require close collaboration between transdisciplinary teams and community members as well as a reorientation of current research objectives to better align genomic discovery efforts with public health priorities and well-recognized barriers to fair health care delivery.

Background: Family health history (FHH) is a tool used to inform individuals about inherited disease risk. Due to their disproportionate morbidity and mortality from some common chronic diseases, U.S. Latinos are an important audience for FHH information. This study examined the effects of a culturally-tailored intervention led by lay health advisors (LHAs) in delivering information about FHH on participants’ intentions, self-efficacy, and conceptual knowledge. Methods: 474 Spanish-speaking Latino participants were enrolled in the study. Individuals in the intervention group participated in a single group educational session using discussion and interactive activities to build skills for discussing FHH with one’s family members and doctor, while individuals in the comparison group had a brochure read aloud to them. Pre- and post-test questionnaires were verbally administered. Results: Primary dependent variables were intentions and self-efficacy to discuss FHH with family members and doctors; these increased in both groups. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that the intervention led to a significantly greater increase in self-efficacy to discuss FHH with family members (p = 0.03). LHA participants were also more than twice as likely (OR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.3–5.0) to correctly understand the purpose of a FHH and found FHH information more useful (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: A communication intervention delivered by LHAs shows promise as an effective means of educating underserved Spanish-speaking Latinos about the importance of FHH for disease prevention. Such community-based approaches can help to close knowledge and skills gaps about FHH and increase confidence in using this information to improve the health of those most at risk.