Natasha Bonhomme

Ms. Natasha Bonhomme


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
17 February 2018 in Human Genomics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
OHon behalf of the Participant Values Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health
on behalf of the Participant Values Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health
ATAdrian Thorogood
Adrian Thorogood
JBJason Bobe
Jason Bobe
BPBarbara Prainsack
Barbara Prainsack
AMAnna Middleton
Anna Middleton
EKErika Kleiderman
Erika Kleiderman
There is a growing support for the stance that patients and research participants should have better and easier access to their raw (uninterpreted) genomic sequence data in both clinical and research contexts. We review legal frameworks and literature on the benefits, risks, and practical barriers of providing individuals access to their data. We also survey genomic sequencing initiatives that provide or plan to provide individual access. Many patients and research participants expect to be able to access their health and genomic data. Individuals have a legal right to access their genomic data in some countries and contexts. Moreover, increasing numbers of participatory research projects, direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, and now major national sequencing initiatives grant individuals access to their genomic sequence data upon request. Drawing on current practice and regulatory analysis, we outline legal, ethical, and practical guidance for genomic sequencing initiatives seeking to offer interested patients and participants access to their raw genomic data.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AEAdrianna Evans
Adrianna Evans
KLKeri LeBlanc
Keri LeBlanc
NBNatasha Bonhomme
Natasha Bonhomme
Scott ShoneScott Shone
Scott Shone
AGAmy Gaviglio
Amy Gaviglio
AGAaron Goldenberg
Aaron Goldenberg
Newborn screening is a process-based public health service. Newborn screening staff and families alike are essential to maintaining the timeliness of the screening process. Newborn screening education must be accurate and accessible. Past newborn screening conferences have highlighted gaps in best practice and evidence-based guidance on newborn screening education. Sharing successful strategies across programs mitigates the scarcity of resources by cutting costs and reducing the burden of work. These factors illustrate the need for an education framework to guide newborn screening education efforts. The Newborn Screening Education Best Practices Framework responds to these issues by outlining guidance for newborn screening education approaches. Experts in the fields of newborn screening, genetics, and bioethics as well as previous research on best practice guidelines have contributed to the development of this framework. The framework outlines a process for users to evaluate newborn screening education approaches as best practices. This framework reviews best practices using a two-step approach, looking at guiding questions, implementation of the newborn screening issue, and evaluation. The framework helps the user define the characteristics of the newborn screening issue, intended audience, and practical steps to implementation, and then decide whether or not it can be used as a best practice.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NSNorma-Jean Simon
Norma-Jean Simon
AAAnne Atkins
Anne Atkins
BMBrianne Miller
Brianne Miller
NBNatasha Bonhomme
Natasha Bonhomme
Beth Anne TariniBeth Anne Tarini
Beth Anne Tarini
Surveys are used to gather a range of data on newborn screening (NBS) processes. We describe the development of a survey about parents’ NBS experiences, in the United States, informed by cognitive pretest interviews among parents with varying NBS test results (true-positive, false-positive, normal). Cognitive pretest interviews were conducted following a semi-structured script and notes were taken to identify problematic survey items. The study team met weekly to discuss pretest feedback, draft changes, and generate revised items. Pretests indicated that parent experiences with NBS are varied and NBS screening procedures are not well understood. Substantial modifications were made to survey questions concerning NBS testing and result communication. Pretesters often associated NBS with other tests/exams/scales—APGAR scores, Ages and Stages questionnaires, and genetic testing during pregnancy. Some pretesters recalled receiving NBS blood spot results during their hospital admission, an uncommon practice, and few recalled knowing results would be provided to them or their pediatrician in the first few weeks of life. Thorough explanations regarding NBS procedures and expectations were embedded within the survey to enhance and improve interpretation of survey questions. Future NBS experience surveys should utilize cognitive pretesting to capture divergent experiences and improve response validity.

30 March 2020 in Journal of Genetic Counseling
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AEAdrianna Evans
Adrianna Evans
MLMolly Lynch
Molly Lynch
MJMihaela Johnson
Mihaela Johnson
NBNatasha Bonhomme
Natasha Bonhomme

1 November 2016 in Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AGAlyssa Gates
Alyssa Gates
STSharon F. Terry
Sharon F. Terry
NBNatasha Bonhomme
Natasha Bonhomme

1 April 2013 in Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NBNatasha Bonhomme
Natasha Bonhomme