Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine.

Communicating genetic risk information in ways that maximize understanding and promote health is increasingly important given the rapidly expanding availability and capabilities of genomic technologies. A well-developed literature on risk communication in general provides guidance for best practices, including presentation of information in multiple formats, attention to framing effects, use of graphics, sensitivity to the way numbers are presented, parsimony of information, attentiveness to emotions, and interactivity as part of the communication process. Challenges to communicating genetic risk information include deciding how best to tailor it, streamlining the process, deciding what information to disclose, accepting that communications may have limited influence, and understanding the impact of context. Meeting these challenges has great potential for empowering individuals to adopt healthier lifestyles and improve public health, but will require multidisciplinary approaches and collaboration.

Mothers' perspectives on their child's mental illness as compared to other complex disorders in their family: insights to inform genetic counseling practice.

To facilitate the development of a therapeutic alliance in genetic counseling, it is important that the counselor understands how families might perceive the condition that constitutes the reason for the referral. Through training and professional practice, genetic counselors develop a thorough understanding of families' perceptions of the conditions that are common indications for genetic counseling. But, for referral indications that are less frequent, like serious mental illnesses, genetic counselors may feel less confident in their understanding of the family's experience, or in their ability to provide psychosocial support when serious mental illness is reported in a family history. This may impede the establishment of a therapeutic alliance. As research shows that most referrals for genetic counseling related to serious mental illness are for female first-degree family members of affected individuals, we sought to explore how this group perceives serious mental illness. To provide a frame of reference with which genetic counselors may be more familiar, we explored how women perceived serious mental illness compared to other common complex disorders in their family. We conducted semi-structured interviews with women who had a child with a serious mental illness (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder) and a first-degree relative with another common complex disorder (diabetes, heart disease, cancer). Interviews were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis. Saturation was reached when nine women had participated. Serious mental illness was perceived as being more severe and as having a greater impact on the family than diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. Themes identified included guilt, stigma, and loss. Some of the most important issues that contribute to mothers' perceptions that serious mental illness is more severe than other common complex disorders could be effectively addressed in genetic counseling. Developing a heightened awareness of how family members experience a relative's mental illness may help genetic counselors to be better able to provide psychosocial support to this group, whether serious mental illness constitutes the primary reason for referral or appears in the family history during counseling for a different referral reason.

Factors affecting recall of different types of personal genetic information about Alzheimer's disease risk: the REVEAL study.

METHODS: Data were obtained through a multisite clinical trial in which different types of genetic risk-related information were disclosed to individuals (n = 246) seeking a risk assessment for Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: Six weeks after disclosure, 83% of participants correctly recalled the number of risk-increasing APOE alleles they possessed, and 74% correctly recalled their APOE genotype. While 84% of participants recalled their lifetime risk estimate to within 5 percentage points, only 51% correctly recalled their lifetime risk estimate exactly. Correct recall of the number of APOE risk-increasing alleles was independently associated with higher education (p < 0.001), greater numeracy (p < 0.05) and stronger family history of Alzheimer's disease (p < 0.05). Before adjustments for confounding, correct recall of APOE genotype was also associated with higher education, greater numeracy and stronger family history of Alzheimer's disease, as well as with higher comfort with numbers and European American ethnicity (all p < 0.05). Correct recall of the lifetime risk estimate was independently associated only with younger age (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Recall of genotype-specific information is high, but recall of exact risk estimates is lower. Incorrect recall of numeric risk may lead to distortions in understanding risk. Further research is needed to determine how best to communicate different types of genetic risk information to patients, particularly to those with lower educational levels and lower numeracy. Health-care professionals should be aware that each type of genetic risk information may be differentially interpreted and retained by patients and that some patient subgroups may have more problems with recall than others.

'Someday it will be the norm': physician perspectives on the utility of genome sequencing for patient care in the MedSeq Project.

AIM: To describe practicing physicians' perceived clinical utility of genome sequencing. MATERIALS & METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of data from 18 primary care physicians and cardiologists in a study of the clinical integration of whole-genome sequencing. Physicians underwent brief genomics continuing medical education before completing surveys and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Physicians described sequencing as currently lacking clinical utility because of its uncertain interpretation and limited impact on clinical decision-making, but they expressed the idea that its clinical integration was inevitable. Potential clinical uses for sequencing included complementing other clinical information, risk stratification, motivating patient behavior change and pharmacogenetics. CONCLUSION: Physicians given genomics continuing medical education use the language of both evidence-based and personalized medicine in describing the utility of genome-wide testing in patient care.

The MedSeq Project: a randomized trial of integrating whole genome sequencing into clinical medicine.

BACKGROUND: Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is already being used in certain clinical and research settings, but its impact on patient well-being, health-care utilization, and clinical decision-making remains largely unstudied. It is also unknown how best to communicate sequencing results to physicians and patients to improve health. We describe the design of the MedSeq Project: the first randomized trials of WGS in clinical care. METHODS/DESIGN: This pair of randomized controlled trials compares WGS to standard of care in two clinical contexts: (a) disease-specific genomic medicine in a cardiomyopathy clinic and (b) general genomic medicine in primary care. We are recruiting 8 to 12 cardiologists, 8 to 12 primary care physicians, and approximately 200 of their patients. Patient participants in both the cardiology and primary care trials are randomly assigned to receive a family history assessment with or without WGS. Our laboratory delivers a genome report to physician participants that balances the needs to enhance understandability of genomic information and to convey its complexity. We provide an educational curriculum for physician participants and offer them a hotline to genetics professionals for guidance in interpreting and managing their patients' genome reports. Using varied data sources, including surveys, semi-structured interviews, and review of clinical data, we measure the attitudes, behaviors and outcomes of physician and patient participants at multiple time points before and after the disclosure of these results. DISCUSSION: The impact of emerging sequencing technologies on patient care is unclear. We have designed a process of interpreting WGS results and delivering them to physicians in a way that anticipates how we envision genomic medicine will evolve in the near future. That is, our WGS report provides clinically relevant information while communicating the complexity and uncertainty of WGS results to physicians and, through physicians, to their patients. This project will not only illuminate the impact of integrating genomic medicine into the clinical care of patients but also inform the design of future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01736566.