[Genetic counseling in Germany: development of demand]. / Humangenetische Beratung in Deutschland: Entwicklung der Inanspruchnahme.

BACKGROUND: With the Act on Genetic Testing (GenDG), the German legislator has issued far-reaching regulations for human genetic services, including genetic counseling. This paper presents data on the use of human genetic counseling in the years before and after the entry into force of GenDG in order to provide an informed assessment of the possible effects of the law. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of 13 years (2005 to 2017), the human genetic counseling services provided within the framework of the statutory health insurance and billable by EBM via the Kassenärztliche associations were recorded via a database query at the Central Institute of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (ZI-KBV) and via individual Kassenärztliche Vereinigungen Deutschlands. For the discussion of the observable development of using genetic counseling and possible future development, additional data on the referral behavior, the waiting times, processing time, and reasons for consultations were extracted from the GenBIn database. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Demand for genetic counseling has steadily increased at an average rate of approximately 6% per year since 2009. This increase started well before the enactment of the GenDG and may be attributed to a multiplicity of factors. Change in demand for genetic counseling is characterized by increasing self-referrals and by increasing referrals by specialists other than obstetricians/gynecologists. Waiting times between 2011 and 2016/2017 have increased. While demand has been growing, the number of key service providers, the contracted medical specialists in human genetics, has remained almost constant. It is foreseeable that capacity limits will be reached if both trends continue.

Life situation of women impaired by Thalidomide embryopathy in North Rhine-Westphalia - a comparative analysis of a recent cross-sectional study with earlier data.

BACKGROUND: Between 1957 and 1961 the substance Thalidomide was sold in West Germany and taken by many women as a sedative during pregnancy. This lead to miscarriages and infants been born with several severe malformations. The aim of this study was to describe the current situation of women impaired by Thalidomide induced embryopahty in North Rhine-Westphalia (Nordrhein-Westfalen), Germany, in comparison with the results found in a study done in 2002 by Nippert et al. METHODS: Questionnaires as well as examinations were performed. Data were compared using descriptive and inductive statistical methods. RESULTS: Both studies show that women impaired by Thalidomide embryopathy face a poorer health status than women their age in the general population and live in fear of further deteriorating health. The majority can only work reduced hours or are already retired due to poor health. Most of those who need assistance are being assisted by their social environment, while professional care is still utilized in only few cases. CONCLUSIONS: An obvious need for a shift in the provision of assistance and/or care provided was found as the social environment supporting the impaired women is also aging and therefore in high danger of breaking apart. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered at German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00010593 , on 07.06.2016 retrospectively.

Validation of a scale for assessing attitudes towards outcomes of genetic cancer testing among primary care providers and breast specialists.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a generic scale for assessing attitudes towards genetic testing and to psychometrically assess these attitudes in the context of BRCA1/2 among a sample of French general practitioners, breast specialists and gyneco-obstetricians. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Nested within the questionnaire developed for the European InCRisC (International Cancer Risk Communication Study) project were 14 items assessing expected benefits (8 items) and drawbacks (6 items) of the process of breast/ovarian genetic cancer testing (BRCA1/2). Another item assessed agreement with the statement that, overall, the expected health benefits of BRCA1/2 testing exceeded its drawbacks, thereby justifying its prescription. The questionnaire was mailed to a sample of 1,852 French doctors. Of these, 182 breast specialists, 275 general practitioners and 294 gyneco-obstetricians completed and returned the questionnaire to the research team. Principal Component Analysis, Cronbach's α coefficient, and Pearson's correlation coefficients were used in the statistical analyses of collected data. RESULTS: Three dimensions emerged from the respondents' responses, and were classified under the headings: "Anxiety, Conflict and Discrimination", "Risk Information", and "Prevention and Surveillance". Cronbach's α coefficient for the 3 dimensions was 0.79, 0.76 and 0.62, respectively, and each dimension exhibited strong correlation with the overall indicator of agreement (criterion validity). CONCLUSIONS: The validation process of the 15 items regarding BRCA1/2 testing revealed satisfactory psychometric properties for the creation of a new scale entitled the Attitudes Towards Genetic Testing for BRCA1/2 (ATGT-BRCA1/2) Scale. Further testing is required to confirm the validity of this tool which could be used generically in other genetic contexts.

General Practitioners and Breast Surgeons in France, Germany, Netherlands and the UK show variable breast cancer risk communication profiles.

BACKGROUND: No information is available on the attitudes of General Practitioners (GPs) and Breast Surgeons (BSs) to their delivery of genetic, environmental and lifestyle risk factor information about breast cancer. The aim of this study was to describe the Breast Cancer Risk Communication Behaviours (RCBs) reported by GPs and BSs in four European countries and to determine the relationships between their RCBs and their socio-occupational characteristics. METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires assessing breast cancer risk communication behaviours using vignettes were mailed to a sample of Breast Surgeons (BS) and General Practitioners (GP) working in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK (N = 7292). Their responses to questions about the risk factors were first ordered and compared by specialty and country after making multivariate adjustments. Rather than defining a standard Risk Presentation Format (RPF) a priori, the various RPFs used by the respondents were analyzed using cluster analysis. RESULTS: Family history and hormonal replacement therapy were the risk factors most frequently mentioned by the 2094 respondents included in this study. Lifestyle BC risk factors such as obesity and alcohol were rarely/occasionally mentioned, but this point differed (p < 0.001) depending on the country and the specialty of the providers involved. Five distinct RPF profiles including the numerical/verbal presentation of absolute/relative risks were identified. The most frequently encountered RPF (34.2%) was characterized by the fact that it included no negative framing of the risks, i.e., the probability of not developing cancer was not mentioned. Age, specialty and country of practice were all found to be significant determinants of the RPF clusters. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing trend for GPs and BSs to discuss lifestyle risk factors with their patients suggests that this may be a relevant means of improving breast cancer prevention. Physicians' risk communication skills should be improved during their initial and vocational training.

Cancer risk communication, predictive testing and management in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK: general practitioners' and breast surgeons' current practice and preferred practice responsibilities.

Genetic testing has its greatest public health value when it identifies individuals who will benefit from specific interventions based upon their risk. This paradigm is the basis for the use of predictive tests, such as BRCA1/BRCA2 testing which has become part of clinical practice for more than a decade. Currently predictive BRCA1/BRCA2 testing is offered to women using low, moderate and high risk based upon family history as cut-off levels. Non-genetic health professionals such as general practitioners (GPs) and breast surgeons (BS) are seen as gatekeepers to manage demand and/or facilitate access to appropriate services for high-risk patients. Data about current practices are lacking. The paper presents data on the current practice of GPs' and BS' cancer risk assessment, referral practices and preferred practice responsibilities for women at risk for familial breast cancer in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK derived by a self-administered questionnaire send to a representative sample of GPs and BS in the four countries. One thousand one hundred ninety-seven GPs and 1,223 BS completed the questionnaire. Both GPs and BS reported that they are consulted by a considerable number of patients presenting with concerns about a family history of cancer. Both commonalities and striking differences could be observed between GPs and BS from the four participating countries. GPs from France and Germany reported significantly higher proportions taking a family history of cancer including the extended family than GPs from the Netherlands and the UK. Most GPs from France, Germany and the Netherlands stated their willingness for providing risk assessment for an unaffected (high-risk) woman with a family history of breast cancer and the vast majority of BS from all four countries reported that they themselves would provide risk assessment for an unaffected (high-risk) woman with a family history of breast cancer. However, a substantial number of both GPs and BS would not have taken an appropriate family history for their patient failing to take into account the paternal side of the family. GPs from Germany reported a significantly lower readiness to refer a patient with a family history of a BRCA1 mutation for specialist genetic counselling when compared to the GPs from the other countries. GPs and BS from France, Germany and the Netherlands significantly less often assigned practice responsibilities to a genetic specialist as compared to the participating GPs and BS from the UK. The outcome of the study confirms the need for capability building in genetics for non-genetic health professionals. Using genetic risk assessment tools without a full understanding could result in missed opportunities for cancer prevention and harm patients. In order to provide best possible services for high-risk patients presenting with cancer concerns, close collaboration with clinical geneticists should become routine part of mainstream medical practice.

Definitions of genetic testing in European legal documents.

The definition of "genetic testing" is not a simple matter, and the term is often used with different meanings. The purpose of this work was the collection and analysis of European (and other) legislation and policy instruments regarding genetic testing, to scrutinise the definitions of genetic testing therewith contained the following: 60 legal documents were identified and examined-55 national and five international ones. Documents were analysed for the type (context) of testing and the material tested and compared by legal fields (privacy and confidentiality, data protection, biobanks, insurance and labour law, forensic medicine); some instruments are very complex and deal with various legal fields at the same time. There was no standard for the definitions used, and different approaches were identified (from wide general, to some very specific and technically based). Often, legal documents did not contain any definitions, and many did not distinguish between genetic testing and genetic information. Genetic testing was more often defined in non-binding legal documents than in binding ones. Definitions are core elements of legal documents, and their accuracy and harmonisation (particularly within a particular legal field) is critical, not to compromise their enforcement. We believe to have gathered now the evidence for adopting the much needed differentiation between (a) "clinical genetics testing", (b) "genetics laboratory-based genetic testing" and (c) "genetic information", as proposed before.

Confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks-a European survey in five countries-Part 1.

Western health care systems are facing today increasing movement of genetic knowledge from research labs into clinical practice. This paper reports the results of a survey that addressed the confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks. The survey was conducted in five countries (France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK). Stratified random samples were drawn from primary care physicians in the five countries representing a sampling frame of 139,579 physicians. Stepwise binary logistic regression procedures were performed to identify the predictor variables for self-reported confidence. Three thousand six hundred eighty-six physicians participated and filled out a self-administered questionnaire. The margin of error for accurate representation of each group of European general practitioners and specialists in the total sample is 2.9% for GP, 2.8% for obstetricians/gynaecologists (OB/GYN) and for paediatricians (PAED) 2.6% (95% confidence level). Confidence in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks is low among participating primary care physicians: 44.2% are not confident, 36.5% somewhat confident, confident or very confident are 19.3%. In each country, those confident/very confident represent less than 33% of the participating physicians. Primary care physicians who report the lowest levels of confidence prove to be those least exposed to medical genetics information and training. Although there are significant differences in the way in which professional education is organised and practice is regulated across European countries, there is a need for a coordinated European effort to improve primary care physicians' background in medical genetics.

Genetic testing for familial/hereditary breast cancer-comparison of guidelines and recommendations from the UK, France, the Netherlands and Germany.

In this review, the national guidelines and recommendations for genetic testing for familial/hereditary breast cancer from the UK, France, the Netherlands and Germany were evaluated as to the inclusion criteria for genetic testing. In all four countries, access to genetic testing relies basically on the family history of breast and ovarian cancer. Similarities are obvious for most selection criteria. All four guidelines recommend embedding genetic testing within a framework of genetic counselling, and all agree to perform genetic testing first in an affected person. However, there are differences regarding the thresholds based on certain familial constellations, detailed description of selection criteria, the degree of relatedness between affected individuals and the counsellee, the age of diagnosis, the individual history of early onset breast cancer, bilateral breast cancer, the tumour morphology or the access to intensified surveillance. These differences and open questions not covered by the guidelines, e.g. on how to deal with phenocopies, unclassified variants, genetic variants in newly identified breast cancer susceptibility genes or with family constellations not fitting the criteria, are discussed. New evidence is usually slowly integrated into the guidelines. An exchange process towards the harmonization of the guidelines will ensure high quality health care across Europe.

General practitioner management of genetic aspects of a cardiac disease: a scenario-based study to anticipate providers' practices.

It is increasingly recognised that genetics will have to be integrated into all parts of primary health care. Previous research has demonstrated that involvement and confidence in genetics varies amongst primary care providers. We aimed to analyse perceptions of primary care providers regarding responsibility for genetic tasks and factors affecting those perceptions. Postal questionnaire including a hypothetical case management scenario of a cardiac condition with a genetic component was sent to random samples of medically qualified general practitioners in France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and UK (n = 1,168). Logistic regression analysis of factors affecting primary care practitioners' willingness to carry out genetic tasks themselves was conducted; 61% would take a family history themselves but only 38% would explain an inheritance pattern and 16% would order a genetic test. In multivariate analysis, only the country of practice was consistently predictive of willingness to carry out genetic tasks, although male gender predicted willingness to carry out the majority of tasks studied. The stage of career at which education in genetics had been provided was not predictive of willingness to carry out any of the tasks analysed. Country of practice is significantly predictive of attitudes towards genetics in primary care practice and therefore genetic education structure and content in Europe will need to be significantly tailored towards country-specific approaches.

Testing the children: do non-genetic health-care providers differ in their decision to advise genetic presymptomatic testing on minors? A cross-sectional study in five countries in the European Union.

BACKGROUND: Within Europe many guidelines exist regarding the genetic testing of minors. Predictive and presymptomatic genetic testing of minors is recommended for disorders for which medical intervention/preventive measures exist, and for which early detection improves future medical health. AIM: This study, which is part of the larger 5th EU-framework "genetic education" (GenEd) study, aimed to evaluate the self-reported responses of nongenetic health-care providers in five different EU countries (Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands) when confronted with a parent requesting presymptomatic testing on a minor child for a treatable disease. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design using postal, structured scenario-based questionnaires that were sent to 8129 general practitioners (GPs) and pediatricians, between July 2004 and October 2004, addressing self-reported management of a genetic case for which early medical intervention during childhood is beneficial, involving a minor. RESULTS: Most practitioners agreed on testing the oldest child, aged 12 years (81.5% for GPs and 87.2% for pediatricians), and not testing the youngest child, aged 6 months (72.6% for GPs and 61.3% for pediatricians). After multivariate adjustment there were statistical differences between countries in recommending a genetic test for the child at the age of 8 years. Pediatricians in France (50%) and Germany (58%) would recommend a test, whereas in the United Kingdom (22%), Sweden (30%), and the Netherlands (32%) they would not. CONCLUSION: Even though presymptomatic genetic testing in minors is recommended for disorders for which medical intervention exists, EU physicians are uncertain at what age starting to do so in young children.

Educational priorities and current involvement in genetic practice: a survey of midwives in the Netherlands, UK and Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: to investigate whether practising midwives are adequately prepared to integrate genetic information into their practice. DESIGN: a cross-sectional, postal, structured questionnaire survey was sent to practising midwives. SETTING: practising midwives from the Netherlands (NL), Sweden (SE) and the United Kingdom (UK). PARTICIPANTS: 1021 replies were received, achieving a response rate of 62%. FINDINGS: 79% (799/1015) of midwives reported attending courses with some 'genetic content' during their initial training. Sixty-eight per cent (533/784) judged this to have been useful for clinical practice. Variation was seen between countries in the amount of genetic content in post-registration training (SE 87%, NL 44%, UK 17%) and most was considered useful. Questions assessing clinical activity identified a current need for genetic knowledge. Midwives described low levels of self-reported confidence both in overtly genetic procedures and in everyday tasks that were underpinned by genetic knowledge. For eight of the 12 procedures, fewer than 20% of midwives considered themselves to be confident. Differences were apparent between countries. Midwives identified psychosocial, screening and risk assessment aspects of genetic education as being important to them, rather than technical aspects or genetic science. CONCLUSIONS: given the low reported confidence with genetic issues in clinical practice, it is essential that this is addressed in terms of the amount, content and targeting of genetic education. This is especially important to ensure the success of national antenatal and baby screening programmes. The results of this study suggest that midwives would welcome further training in genetics, addressing genetic topics most relevant to their clinical practice.

Regulations and practices of genetic counselling in 38 European countries: the perspective of national representatives.

The aim of this article is to review the national regulations and practices of genetic counselling in 38 European countries, and to examine how well they intersect the ideals of genetic counselling defined in international guidelines. Using an electronic survey, representatives of the National Societies of Human Genetics in 29 countries, and appropriate contact persons for the field of genetic counselling in 9 other countries, were asked about the regulations and practices. The answers showed that consent, confidentiality, genetic counselling in the context of prenatal diagnosis, those professionals who may perform genetic counselling, and non-directiveness were the topics most often either agreed upon among professionals or regulated in those countries. These are also among the key aspects of ideal genetic counselling, based on international guidelines. Counselling in the context of susceptibility testing for multifactorial diseases, counselling people from ethnic minorities and recontacting the counsellees, on the contrary, were topics regulated or guided by generally applied practices in only few countries. Many of the answers expressed a desire for more regulation of genetic counselling, and that more uniform practices of education and organization of genetic counselling would be welcome in Europe.

What is ideal genetic counselling? A survey of current international guidelines.

The objective of this article is to review guidelines that address counselling in the context of genetic testing in order to summarise what aspects of counselling they consider most important, and to examine how they construct the ideal of genetic counselling. Guidelines were collected by examining the websites of different international professional, political, ethical and patient organisations, either previously known or found with the help of the Google search engine, and also using references listed in other studies. The most frequently mentioned topics in the collected 56 guidelines were sought, and this was carried out with the software package Qualitative Solutions and Research for Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing. Topics related to genetic counselling that were mentioned in at least 30 of 56 collected documents were considered to be the most important aspects of genetic counselling. The ideal of genetic counselling is expressed in the analysed guidelines as being composed of (1) an appropriately trained professional who understands genetics and its ethical implications well; (2) relevant and objective information; (3) assurance of the counsellee's understanding; (4) psychological support; (5) informed consent; (6) confidentiality of genetic information; (7) considering familial implications; (8) appropriate handling of potential discrimination of testing; and (9) assuring autonomous decision-making by the counsellee. The ideal of genetic counselling is rather consistent in the guidelines, but there are some contradictions between the requirements of objective information-giving and adapting counselling to counsellee's circumstances.

EuroGentest: DNA-based testing for heritable disorders in Europe.

OBJECTIVES: Regarding the recent attention to develop policies regarding the provision of clinical genetic testing services, access to, acceptance, utilisation and regulation of genetic services was investigated in selected European countries as well as one non-European country. METHODS: Data were collected on the basis of relevant international reports and sources accessible via the internet, from self- designed, internationally administered surveys and with the help of a panel of experts from European countries participating in several workshops as well as from National European Societies of Human Genetics. RESULTS: A selection of divergent health care systems was reviewed and compared (e.g. Finland, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Lithuania and Serbia/Montenegro). For the evaluation of clinical validity and utility of genetic testing, background information was provided focussing on DNA-based testing for heritable disorders with a strong genetic component (usually due to the action of a single gene). CONCLUSIONS: There is great heterogeneity in genetic testing services among the countries surveyed. It is premature to mandate that genetic testing provided by clinical services meets professional standards regarding clinical validity and utility, because there is to date no consensus within the scientific community and among health care providers to what extent clinical validity and utility can and need to be assessed. Points to consider in the process of developing such standards are proposed.

Education in medical genetics for physicians: Germany.

We have assessed the relative amount of genetics education at each of the 3 levels of medical training in Germany, namely the undergraduate, postgraduate and continuous medical education stages. Our data show that genetics is ill represented at all levels. Written examinations at the end of the relevant section at the undergraduate level include very few questions related to medical genetics, and particularly few in subjects such as pathology, internal medicine and gynaecology and obstetrics. At the postgraduate level, only 4 specialties require knowledge in medical genetics that may be subject to examination. At the continuous medical education level, medical genetics plays a very minor role. All 3 levels have been subject to reform in recent years, but effects that might ensue from these reforms cannot be expected before 2008.

Genotype-based screening for hereditary hemochromatosis: II. Attitudes toward genetic testing and psychosocial impact--a report from a German pilot study.

In collaboration with the German Sickness Fund (Kaufmännische Krankenkasse-KKH), we conducted a pilot study on DNA-based population screening of hereditary hemochromatosis (HH) in Germany. The health insurance organization KKH briefly informed their members about the possibility to participate voluntarily in this pilot project. A total of 5882 KKH members contacted us and received detailed information on the aim of the project and clinical and genetic aspects of HH. Of these individuals, 3961 requested HFE genotyping. After genotype results had been communicated to the participants' general practitioner, we sent a self-administered questionnaire to all homozygous (n = 67) and heterozygous (n = 485) as well as 448 wild-type study participants (sigma = 1000) to assess the psychosocial impact of HFE genotyping. In addition, questionnaires were sent to 8000 randomly selected members of the KKH to investigate their attitude toward genetic testing. Six hundred thirty-one (63.1%) of the test participants and 2141 (26.8%) of the randomly chosen KKH members responded. A total of 59.1% of the members would generally accept predictive genetic testing and 3.7% objected to such tests in principle. Individuals with higher educational status accepted predictive testing significantly more often than individuals with less education. Of the tested individuals, 69.9% thought that participation in the pilot study was probably beneficial for them and 1% (5 heterozygotes and 1 wild-type) thought that it was probably harmful. Of the participants, 94.6% judged their decision to have participated in the pilot study as right and 0.3% (2 heterozygotes) as probably wrong. Only very few of the tested individuals underwent pretest (1 case) or posttest (11 cases) genetic counseling. We conclude that genotype- based screening for HH is generally accepted and was perceived as beneficial. Negative psychosocial consequences are rare and could presumably have been prevented by delivering appropriate pretest and posttest information.

Genetic education and nongenetic health professionals: educational providers and curricula in Europe.

PURPOSE: Advances in and diffusion of genetic technology mean that nongeneticist health professionals have an increasing need to develop and maintain genetic competencies. This has been recognized by patient support groups and the European Commission. As the first phase of the GenEd (Genetic Education for Nongenetic Health Professionals) project, we investigated health professional education at undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing levels in terms of genetic content and delivery. METHODS: Information was collected in the five GenEd partner countries (France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK) by reviewing published curricula and web sites and by directly contacting educational and regulatory organizations. Information was also requested from a further six South and East European collaborators (Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, and Spain). RESULTS: Health professional education and training differed in structure with wide variation in the content and duration of genetic education provided. France and Germany have national undergraduate medical curricula but with minimal overt genetic content, mainly confined to basic science courses. In Sweden, Netherlands, and the UK, the content is largely at the discretion of individual universities. Evidence from the UK, France, and Germany indicates that genetic professionals are influencing the genetic content of medical curricula. In postgraduate training, some specialist regulators have adopted specific genetic educational requirements, but many programs lack any explicit genetics. Within each country many organizations have responsibility for setting, assessing, and delivering medical and midwifery education. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the multiplicity of organizations involved in the provision of genetic education, changing professional education is likely to be challenging. However, it may be that development of a multiprofessional consensus across Europe is achievable. The strategy adopted by the US National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics may be helpful.

DNA-based genetic testing is rising steeply in a national health care system with open access to services: a survey of genetic test use in Germany, 1996-2002.

The extent to which the fast-growing body of genetic knowledge is transferred into everyday clinical practice has nowhere been assessed in a systematic way. Available quantitative analyses of DNA-based genetic test provision and uptake rates are all concerned with specific test programs. The German health-care system is ideally suited for a more general approach, because it is highly flexible regarding access to services, thus permitting quick adjustments to sudden changes in particular subfields of medicine such as genetic testing. We have measured the amount of genetic service provision in Germany between 1996 and 2002 by making use of the central database of the German national health-care system and by inquiring with private health insurance. We can document a three-fold increase of DNA-based testing in the time period 1996-2002, whereas cytogenetic analyses and genetic counseling have remained constant. The growing body of genetic knowledge does indeed seem to be transferred into medical practice at an increasing rate, and the uptake rates are largely in proportion to test offers. DNA-based testing appears to be focussed on disease-associated germ-line alterations.

Women's experiences of undergoing BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: organisation of the German Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Consortium Survey and Preliminary Data from Münster.

BACKGROUND: In order to promote safe and effective testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in clinical practice, a network of expert centres in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer ('Verbundprojekt familiärer Brust- und Eierstockkrebs'; German Consortium on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer) has been established by the Deutsche Krebshilfe (German Cancer Aid). To improve practice, evaluations based upon the views of patients who have undergone testing concerning the impact of the genetic diagnosis and the quality of the services they receive and require are undertaken. METHODS: Herein, we first describe the protocols for interdisciplinary pre- and post-test counselling and for molecular diagnostics, then the feedback from the patients undergoing testing. Women and men who had obtained their test results at least 6 months earlier were interviewed using a questionnaire including open and standardised questions at 11 participating centres in 2002-2003. Reported here are the survey protocol and preliminary data from interviews with women conducted by the centre based at the University of Münster's Medical School in 2002 (n = 46). RESULTS: Compared to international guidelines, the Consortium's protocols provide more specifically outlined indications based on the mutation frequencies observed in the German population for families that should be offered interdisciplinary counselling and genetic testing. The data from the Münster survey suggest that there is little regret regarding the decision to undergo testing and that the vast majority of women would undergo the test again. However, women with positive findings experienced more problems than women with negative results. They were less prone to recommend the test and to communicate the tests results in their family compared to women with negative test results. Communication of test results within the family was characterised by preferential information of female family members. CONCLUSION: BRCA1/2 testing should be provided within a framework that ensures harmonisation and standardisation of services and that protects users. Women and men with positive test results may need special support from counsellors on how to handle test results in their families. Strategies need to be developed and evaluated on how to help stimulate and facilitate the dissemination of information within families without potentially 'overstraining' the 'messenger patient', at least when a mutation has been identified.