Attitudes and interest in incorporating BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility testing into reproductive carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish men and women.

Pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes are associated with elevated cancer risks in men and women. Due to a founder effect, Ashkenazi Jewish individuals are at higher risk for carrying three specific BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. There have been recent calls for population screening in this population because many carriers do not have family histories suggestive of hereditary cancer. One approach could be to integrate optional BRCA1/2 testing into routinely offered reproductive carrier screening for recessive and X-linked disorders. However, the differing goals of these types of testing (i.e., personal health risks versus family planning) raise questions about the implications for patient education and informed consent. To this end, we aimed to determine interest, attitudes, and preferences regarding integrating such testing by electronically surveying 331 Ashkenazi Jewish participants in JScreen - a national, not-for-profit, at-home carrier screening program focused on genetic risks in Jewish communities. We found that while 41% of participants had plans to pursue BRCA1/2 testing, 93% would have opted for such testing if offered as an add-on to reproductive carrier screening. This was particularly true of those with higher perceived cancer risk and more positive attitudes toward genetic testing. With respect to preferences about delivery of this service, more than 85% of participants preferred remote (telephone, print, or web-based) genetic education rather than traditional genetic counseling. These results suggest that offering optional BRCA1/2 testing within the context of reproductive carrier screening might provide opportunities for cancer prevention without overburdening scarce genetic counseling resources.

Evaluating the experiences of individuals with personal health risks identified through expanded carrier screening.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is used to identify individuals and couples at risk for having children with recessive or X-linked genetic conditions; however, personal health risks (PHR) can also be identified through this testing. There is limited data on how genetic counseling regarding PHR from ECS is perceived by the individual, or how they use this information. This study quantitatively surveyed individuals identified with these risks between September 2013 and March 2020. The 30-item survey included the validated Genomics Outcome Scale Short Form, the validated Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale, and original questions. Survey topics included pre-test knowledge of the possibility of discovering PHR through testing, satisfaction with pre-test education that addresses potential risks, perceived severity of PHR, empowerment by and understanding of information, anxiety levels related to their PHR, perceived genetic counseling support, and satisfaction with telehealth. A total of 416 completed surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and linear and logistic regressions. The majority of participants were satisfied or extremely satisfied with pre-test education (n = 328; 78.8%) and telehealth (n = 329; 79.1%). However, more participants who were aware of the possibility of identifying PHR through ECS prior to testing were satisfied with pre-test education compared to those who were not aware. Additionally, a lack of prior awareness of PHR was associated with lower empowerment scores (p = .004). Those who were highly satisfied with genetic counseling were more likely to feel empowered and understand the information presented (p = .001). The majority of individuals used their PHR information following their results appointment (n = 391; 94.0%). The results of this study suggest that receiving PHR information was useful and was positively influenced by both pre-test education and the genetic counseling process.

Telehealth for genetic counseling: A systematic evidence review.

Telehealth options, such as telephone counseling or videoconferencing, for service delivery in genetic counseling are becoming more widely accepted. However, until now, there has not been a systematic review of the literature focused specifically on genetic counseling outcomes for telehealth. We performed a systematic evidence review to compare telehealth genetic counseling (THGC), including videoconferencing and telephone counseling, across specialties to in-person genetic counseling (IPGC) for a range of outcomes specific to patient and provider experiences and access to care. Several biomedical databases were queried up to January 11, 2021, to identify original research evaluating THGC. Through this search, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria including 13 randomized controlled trials and 29 non-randomized observational studies encompassing 13,901 patients. Most included studies focused only on cancer genetic counseling; however, adult, pediatric, and prenatal specialties were also represented. The majority of studies evaluated patient and/or access to care outcomes. Though most studies reported high patient satisfaction with THGC, as well as comparable rates of trust and rapport, confidence in privacy, health behavior changes, and psychosocial outcomes, few represented diverse populations. Data of provider experiences were limited and varied with more disadvantages noted compared with patient experiences, particularly in studies involving telephone genetic counseling. Studies consistently reported a decrease in the patients' costs and time required for travel when patients are seen via THGC compared to IPGC with a similar reduction in costs to the health system. Overall, results from our evidence synthesis suggest THGC is non-inferior or comparable to IPGC across many domains, even considering that many of the studies included in this review were conducted with telehealth systems, notably videoconferencing, that were less robust and reliable than what is available today. There are notable limitations within this body of literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our analysis. We outline several recommendations for future studies.