"We are not a typical family anymore": Exploring the experiences and support needs of fathers of children with Fragile X syndrome in Australia.

A diagnosis of the X-linked condition Fragile X syndrome (FXS) in a child commonly reveals the mother's carrier status. Previous research focused on the genetic counseling process for the child and maternal family, despite calls for more research on the support needs of fathers. This study explored experiences and support needs of fathers at least 1 year after their child's FXS diagnosis to understand barriers and enablers and optimize health outcomes for the family. In-depth interviews were conducted with 11 fathers recruited through the Australian Genetics of Learning Disability Service and the Fragile X Association. Deidentified transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis guided by an inductive approach. Four themes emerged: (1) making life easier through understanding-yesterday and today, (2) the path to a new normal-today and tomorrow, (3) seeking information and support, and (4) what men want. Fathers reported diagnostic odysseys, postdiagnostic grief, and challenges adjusting. They highlighted difficulties in understanding their child's unique behaviors and needs, responding to their partner's psychological support needs, planning for their child's future, and navigating complex health and disability systems. Participants suggested health professionals facilitate father-to-father support and psychological counseling. These findings highlight the unmet needs of fathers and suggest that a strengths-based approach is critically important given the recognized mental health impact.

Population-based BRCA1/2 testing programmes are highly acceptable in the Jewish community: results of the JeneScreen Study.

BACKGROUND: Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) people have a higher incidence of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) than unselected populations. Three BRCA-Jewish founder mutations (B-JFMs) comprise >90% of BRCA1/2 PVs in AJ people. Personal/family cancer history-based testing misses ≥50% of people with B-JFM. METHODS: We compared two population-based B-JFM screening programmes in Australia-using (1) an online tool (Sydney) and (2) in-person group sessions (Melbourne). RESULTS: Of 2167 Jewish people tested (Sydney n=594; Melbourne n=1573), 1.3% (n=28) have a B-JFM, only 2 of whom had a significant cancer family history (Manchester score ≥12). Pretest anxiety scores were normal (mean 9.9±3.5 (6-24)), with no significant post-result change (9.5±3.3). Decisional regret (mean 7.4±13.0 (0-100)), test-related distress (mean 0.8+/2.2 (0-30)) and positive experiences (reverse-scored) (mean 3.4±4.5 (1-20)) scores were low, with no significant differences between Sydney and Melbourne participants. Post-education knowledge was good overall (mean 11.8/15 (±2.9)) and significantly higher in Melbourne than Sydney. Post-result knowledge was the same (mean 11.7 (±2.4) vs 11.2 (±2.4)). Participants with a B-JFM had higher post-result anxiety and test-related distress and lower positive experiences, than those without a B-JFM, but scores were within the normal range. Family cancer history did not significantly affect knowledge or anxiety, or pretest perception of B-JFM or cancer risks. Most participants (93%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the programme. CONCLUSION: Both B-JFM screening programmes are highly acceptable to Australian Jewish communities. The programme enabled identification of several individuals who were previously unaware they have a B-JFM, many of whom would have been ineligible for current criteria-based testing in Australia.

Parents' expectations, preferences, and recall of germline findings in a childhood cancer precision medicine trial.

BACKGROUND: Germline genome sequencing in childhood cancer precision medicine trials may reveal pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes in more than 10% of children. These findings can have implications for diagnosis, treatment, and the child's and family's future cancer risk. Understanding parents' perspectives of germline genome sequencing is critical to successful clinical implementation. METHODS: A total of 182 parents of 144 children (<18 years of age) with poor-prognosis cancers enrolled in the Precision Medicine for Children with Cancer trial completed a questionnaire at enrollment and after the return of their child's results, including clinically relevant germline findings (received by 13% of parents). Parents' expectations of germline genome sequencing, return of results preferences, and recall of results received were assessed. Forty-five parents (of 43 children) were interviewed in depth. RESULTS: At trial enrollment, most parents (63%) believed it was at least "somewhat likely" that their child would receive a clinically relevant germline finding. Almost all expressed a preference to receive a broad range of germline genomic findings, including variants of uncertain significance (88%). Some (29%) inaccurately recalled receiving a clinically relevant germline finding. Qualitatively, parents expressed confusion and uncertainty after the return of their child's genome sequencing results by their child's clinician. CONCLUSIONS: Many parents of children with poor-prognosis childhood cancer enrolled in a precision medicine trial expect their child may have an underlying cancer predisposition syndrome. They wish to receive a wide scope of information from germline genome sequencing but may feel confused by the reporting of trial results.

Health professionals' role in the transfer of mosaic embryos after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are health professionals' clinical practices, views and self-rated competencies regarding the transfer of mosaic embryos? DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study using surveys. RESULTS: Data were collected from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand. Ninety-five responses were analysed and reported. The results show that most health professionals (n = 62) discussed the transfer of mosaic embryos for different reasons and raised concerns regarding various risks. Although many health professionals were unsure whether mosaic embryos should be transferred, they were more inclined to encourage transfer if the scenario involved segmental losses compared with mosaicism involving duplication of the entire chromosome (i.e. trisomy 21) (e.g. OR = 0.21, P < 0.001; OR = 2.78, P = 0.04). The majority of health professionals would inform patients about the mosaicism to facilitate informed decision making. The factor that health professionals identified as most important when discussing the transfer of mosaic embryos was the specific chromosome involved. Different self-rated competencies were found among health professionals with different backgrounds. Geneticists and genetic counsellors had the highest self-rated competencies. CONCLUSIONS: Most health professionals were willing to discuss the mosaicism in the embryo with patients to facilitate informed decision making. However, health professionals' uncertainty towards the transfer of mosaic embryos indicated a lack of a standardized transfer policy. In addition, obstetricians, gynaecologists and those with multiprofessional backgrounds showed deficiencies in several self-rated competencies, suggesting that education targeted to these groups is needed to optimize the quality of care of women considering transfer of mosaic embryos.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover). METHODS: We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia. RESULTS: Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required. CONCLUSION: While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

Factors influencing patients' decision-making about preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the roles of individual and interpersonal factors in couples' decision-making regarding preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Couples' decision-making regarding PGT-M was associated with individual and interpersonal factors, that is the perceived consistency of information received, satisfaction with information, self-efficacy (individuals' beliefs in their ability to make decisions), actual knowledge about PGT-M and social support from the partner. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Various factors have been shown to be associated with decision-making regarding PGT-M. However, PGT-M is experienced at an individual level, and to date, no studies have investigated the roles of the above-mentioned individual and interpersonal factors. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a cross-sectional study with 279 participants. Participants were recruited through IVFAustralia, Sydney Children's Hospital and support groups from May 2020 to November 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were women who had undergone or were considering PGT-M and their partners. Participants were recruited through IVFAustralia, Sydney Children's Hospital and support groups to complete online questionnaires. Decisional regret, decisional satisfaction and decisional conflict were measured as outcome variables. Multiple linear regressions were performed to examine the association between factors and outcome variables. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to test the differences between participants who had undergone PGT-M and those who were considering PGT-M. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: For couples who had undergone PGT-M, decisional regret was significantly negatively associated with perceived consistency of information received (ß = -0.26, P < 0.01), self-efficacy (ß = -0.25, P < 0.01) and actual knowledge about PGT-M (ß = -0.30, P < 0.001), while decisional satisfaction had positive association with satisfaction with information received (ß = 0.37, P < 0.001) and self-efficacy (ß = 0.24, P < 0.05). For couples who were considering PGT-M, decisional conflict was negatively associated with satisfaction with information received (ß = -0.56, P < 0.001). For females who had undergone PGT-M, decisional regret was negatively associated with social support from the partner (ß = -0.35, P < 0.05) in addition to perceived consistency of information received (ß = -0.24, P < 0.05). In this group, decisional satisfaction was positively associated with women's satisfaction with the information received (ß = 0.34, P < 0.01), social support from the partner (ß = 0.26, P < 0.05) and self-efficacy (ß = 0.25, P < 0.05). For females who were considering PGT-M, decisional conflict was negatively associated with satisfaction with the information received (ß = -0.43, P < 0.01) and social support from the partner (ß = -0.30, P < 0.05). This study also identified those aspects of PGT-M that couples felt most concerned about in relation to their decision-making, in particular safety issues such as short- or long-term health problems for the baby and potential harms to the embryos and the mother's health. The likelihood of getting pregnant and having a baby with a genetic condition being tested for were also important in couples' decision-making. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study assessed the concerns of couples about having a baby with a variety of genetic conditions. However, condition-specific issues might not be covered. Furthermore, social support from the partner was assessed among females only. Male participants' perceived social support from their partner and the association between mutual support and decision-making were not assessed due to the absence of dyadic data. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results highlight the importance of effective patient education on PGT-M and the need to provide high-quality and consistent information in the context of patient-centred care. Patients are likely to benefit from information that addresses their specific concerns in relation to PGT-M. From females' perspective, support from partners is essential, and partners should, therefore, be encouraged to participate in all stages of the decision-making process. Suggestions for future studies were made. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): B.M. was funded through a Senior Research Fellowship Level B (ID 1078523) from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. L.C. was supported by a University International Postgraduate Award under the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship. No other funding was received for this study. The authors report no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Decisional needs of patients considering preimplantation genetic testing: a systematic review.

This systematic review reports on the needs and sources of support in patients' decision-making regarding the uptake of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). Five databases were searched systematically to capture qualitative and quantitative studies. A total of 2336 studies were screened by title and abstract. Twelve studies met the eligibility criteria and reported on 4047 participants. This systematic review shows that patients need information directly relevant to PGT treatment, and information on health care relating to treatment and alternative reproductive options. Information that is too detailed, excessive and contains a large volume of medical terminology can be a barrier to decision-making. Published research suggests that health professionals provide general information on PGT and discuss it in detail only when patients require more information about it. Additionally, studies have shown that patients receive decisional support through mass media, significant persons in their lives and health professionals, whereas referring obstetricians and gynaecologists provided relatively less help compared with other health professionals. This systematic review highlights the importance of developing decision aids that meet patients' decisional needs as indicated in previous studies and that use innovative formats to deliver information. Additionally, given rapid technical developments, a dearth of continuing professional education is available on PGT for clinicians to keep updated.

Decision-making for Risk-reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in Southeast Asian BRCA Mutation Carriers With Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in Asian countries is variable despite being the most effective option for ovarian cancer risk reduction in BRCA mutation carriers. Exploration of factors which may impact the RRSO decision-making of BRCA mutation carriers from Malaysia, a developing country in Southeast Asia, was undertaken. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 28 Malaysian BRCA mutation carriers with a history of breast cancer were conducted in addition to observing their RRSO decision-making consultations in the clinic. RESULTS: The decision-making considerations among the carriers were centered around the overarching theme of "Negotiating cancer risk and womanhood priorities," with the following themes: (1) risk perception, (2) self-preservation, (3) motherhood obligation, and (4) the preciousness of marriage. Cognitive knowledge of BRCA risk was often conceptualized based on personal and family history of cancer, personal beliefs, and faith. Many women reported fears that RRSO would affect them physically and emotionally, worrying about the post-surgical impact on their motherhood responsibilities. Nevertheless, some reported feeling obliged to choose RRSO for the sake of their children. For some, their husband's support and approval were critical, with emotional well-being and sexuality reportedly perceived as important to sustaining married life. Despite reporting hesitancy toward RRSO, women's decisions about choosing this option evolved as their priorities changed at different stages of life. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing during clinic encounters with Malaysian women that RRSO decision-making involves negotiating the likelihood of developing cancer with the societal priorities of being a woman, mother, and wife may serve to support their decision-making.

Polygenic risk in familial breast cancer: Changing the dynamics of communicating genetic risk.

Hereditary breast cancer is associated with known genetic changes: either variants that affect function in a few rare genes or an ever-increasing number of common genomic risk variants, which combine to produce a cumulative effect, known as a polygenic risk (PR) score. While the clinical validity and utility of PR scores are still being determined, the communication of PR is a new challenge for genetic health professionals. This study investigated how PR scores are discussed in the familial cancer clinic compared with a previous study assessing the communication of monogenic risk (MR) for breast cancer. Sixty-five PR consultations between genetic health professionals and women at familial risk of breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using a methodology adapted from the MR study. Analysis of consultations shows that while there were similarities in communicating MR and PR, the complexity and novelty of the polygenic information influenced the style of counseling used by genetic health professionals toward a teaching model of genetic counseling, rather than a patient-centered approach. In particular, compared to MR consultations, in PR consultations significantly fewer counselees (a) were asked about their reasons for attending genetic counseling; or (b) had their information preferences, decision-making style, medical knowledge, understanding, or concerns checked. In conclusion, it is anticipated that PR scores will become part of standard clinical practice. Thus, it will be important for all genetic health professionals to be appropriately educated so that they can tailor their communication to meet patient needs.

Breast cancer polygenic risk scores: a 12-month prospective study of patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior of women choosing to receive (receivers) or decline (decliners) their breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS). METHODS: Women either unaffected or affected by breast cancer and from families with no identified pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk gene were invited to receive their PRS. All participants completed a questionnaire at study enrollment. Receivers completed questionnaires at two weeks and 12 months after receiving their PRS, and decliners a second questionnaire at 12 months post study enrollment. RESULTS: Of the 208 participants, 165 (79%) received their PRS. Among receivers, there were no changes in anxiety or distress following testing. However, compared to women with a low PRS, those with a high PRS reported greater genetic testing-specific distress, perceived risk, decisional regret, and less genetic testing-positive response. At 12 months, breast screening and uptake of risk-reducing strategies were consistent with current Australian guidelines of breast cancer risk management. Reasons for declining PRS included being unable to attend the appointment in person and concerns over potential emotional response. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the study provide insight into women's responses to receiving PRS and highlight the issues that need to be addressed in the associated model of genetic counseling.

Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics).

PURPOSE: Widespread, quality genomics education for health professionals is required to create a competent genomic workforce. A lack of standards for reporting genomics education and evaluation limits the evidence base for replication and comparison. We therefore undertook a consensus process to develop a recommended minimum set of information to support consistent reporting of design, development, delivery, and evaluation of genomics education interventions. METHODS: Draft standards were derived from literature (25 items from 21 publications). Thirty-six international experts were purposively recruited for three rounds of a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness, utility, and design. RESULTS: The final standards include 18 items relating to development and delivery of genomics education interventions, 12 relating to evaluation, and 1 on stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSION: These Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation in Genomics (RISE2 Genomics) are intended to be widely applicable across settings and health professions. Their use by those involved in reporting genomics education interventions and evaluation, as well as adoption by journals and policy makers as the expected standard, will support greater transparency, consistency, and comprehensiveness of reporting. Consequently, the genomics education evidence base will be more robust, enabling high-quality education and evaluation across diverse settings.

Genetic counselors, patients', and carers' views on an Australian clinical genetics service information system.

The Genetic Information System (GIS) is an Australian database of family genetic information. This health information technology system has been used by all 31 publicly operated clinical genetics services across New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) for over a decade. As these services are separated geographically, the linkage engendered by the GIS facilitates the services to operate as a virtual state-wide service. This study aimed to explore the views of genetic counselors, patients, and carers on the use and storage of family genetic information in the GIS. Data were collected using audio-recorded semi-structured telephone interviews with genetic counselors experienced with using the GIS and focus groups with past patients/carers of the services. Using thematic analysis, four themes were identified from genetic counselor participant interviews (n = 12): (a) Shared information is valuable; (b) inconsistent data entry provides a challenge; (c) perceived need for the GIS to be current and integrated with other health systems; and (d) future challenges and strategies for the GIS. Three themes were identified following three focus groups with consumer participants (n = 14): (a) access to family genetic information provides a 'clearer picture'; (b) support, but caution, concerning use of information for relatives' health care; and (c) stewardship of family information. Genetic counselors and consumers identified similar advantages and privacy concerns regarding the sharing of family genetic information and all participants wanted patients/carers to be better informed about the GIS early in the genetic counseling process. Consumers were reassured by genetics health professionals' stewardship of their information, but surprised the GIS was not available nationally or for private geneticists or certain non-genetic specialists. These findings may inform further development of the GIS and other clinical genetic databases and lead to increased patient/carer knowledge through education and resource development.

Helping young children understand inherited cancer predisposition syndromes using bibliotherapy.

Communication with children about hereditary conditions in the family can be difficult for parents. Yet, good communication strategies are leading determinants of adaptation and resilience. With inherited cancer predisposition syndromes that can affect young children such as Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) and hereditary pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma syndrome (HPPS), genetic testing and subsequent surveillance in at-risk children is the optimal intervention. Given testing often commences early, providing children and their parents with appropriate genetic counseling and communication strategies is important for informed decision making. To inform such communication strategies, we used a bibliotherapeutic framework, where stories are delivered prescriptively (i.e., 'bibliotherapy'), to develop a psycho-educational resource for children aged 5-10 years old at risk of either LFS or HPPS. Illustrated storybooks for children were created based on models of developmental comprehension. To ascertain their experience, parents were invited to read a storybook to their child/ren and participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using a general inductive approach. The bibliotherapeutic resource reportedly supported parents with communication about these issues without raising emotional distress in either themselves or their children. The key stages of a bibliotherapeutic interaction were facilitated by the use of this resource, and all parents reported that it would have been useful when their children were first tested and/or diagnosed. This study lays the foundation for the application of bibliotherapy as a psycho-educational intervention in genetic counseling and demonstrates that bibliotherapy may improve the process of communication between parents and children regarding pediatric-inherited cancer syndromes.

Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project.

BACKGROUND: The use of genetic test results in risk-rated insurance is a significant concern internationally, with many countries banning or restricting the use of genetic test results in underwriting. In Australia, life insurers' use of genetic test results is legal and self-regulated by the insurance industry (Financial Services Council (FSC)). In 2018, an Australian Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that insurers' use of genetic test results in underwriting should be prohibited. In 2019, the FSC introduced an industry self-regulated moratorium on the use of genetic test results. In the absence of government oversight, it is critical that the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of the moratorium is monitored. Here we describe the protocol of our government-funded research project, which will serve that critical function between 2020 and 2023. METHODS: A realist evaluation framework was developed for the project, using a context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) approach, to systematically assess the impact of the moratorium for a range of stakeholders. Outcomes which need to be achieved for the moratorium to accomplish its intended aims were identified, and specific data collection measures methods were developed to gather the evidence from relevant stakeholder groups (consumers, health professionals, financial industry and genetic research community) to determine if aims are achieved. Results from each arm of the study will be analysed and published in peer-reviewed journals as they become available. DISCUSSION: The A-GLIMMER project will provide essential monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of the self-regulated insurance moratorium. On completion of the study (3 years) a Stakeholder Report will be compiled. The Stakeholder Report will synthesise the evidence gathered in each arm of the study and use the CMO framework to evaluate the extent to which each of the outcomes have been achieved, and make evidence-based recommendations to the Australian federal government, life insurance industry and other stakeholders.

Uptake of polygenic risk information among women at increased risk of breast cancer.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are increasingly being implemented to assess breast cancer risk. This study aimed to assess and determine factors associated with uptake of PRS among women at increased risk of breast cancer for whom genetic testing to date had been uninformative. Participants were recruited from the Variants in Practice study from which breast cancer PRS had been calculated. Four hundred women were notified by letter of the availability of their PRS and invited to complete a self-administered survey comprising several validated scales. Considering non-participants, uptake of PRS was between 61.8% and 42.1%. Multivariate logistic regression identified that women were more likely to receive their PRS if they reported greater benefits (odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, P = .011) and fewer barriers to receiving their PRS (OR = 0.80, P = .007), had completed higher level education (OR = 3.32, P = .004), and did not have daughters (0.29, P = .006). Uptake of breast cancer PRS varied according to several testing- and patient-related factors. Knowledge of these factors will facilitate the implementation of polygenic testing in clinical practice and support informed decision making by patients.

Exploring the barriers preventing Indigenous Australians from accessing cancer genetic counseling.

In Australia, individuals of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent (Indigenous Australians) have poorer health outcomes than the general population, including higher incidence of cancer and reduced life expectancy up to 14 years compared to non-Indigenous Australians. Although differences in engagement with healthcare and beliefs about disease/cancer exist between Indigenous communities, a number of common barriers have been identified hindering attendance at mainstream health services. To inform exploration of barriers that may impact access to a cancer genetic counseling service, consultations with Aboriginal stakeholders were undertaken. Ethical principles for studies that engage Indigenous communities were followed throughout the research endeavor. Using a stakeholder-endorsed focus group approach, the views of an Aboriginal Elders group (n = 9) were sought with additional semi-structured interviews with social science and genetics researchers working with Indigenous communities in Australia (n = 7). Thematic analysis of the results identified three themes: explanatory models of illness, barriers to keeping well and attending services, and recommendations for improvements to access/attendance. Barriers common to accessing both mainstream health services and clinical genetic services were identified, including attributions of illness and cancer. Specific genetic counseling barriers included the cultural inclusivity and accessibility of services, and a lack of awareness of genetic counseling both in the community and by clinicians unfamiliar with genetics. Recommendations included developing flexible service delivery models and culturally appropriate resources for Indigenous patients. These findings may inform future studies to improve Indigenous health outcomes and promote a more accessible, culturally appropriate approach to provision of cancer genetics services for Australia's First Peoples.

Pre-genetics clinic resource evaluation for adults with intellectual disability: The pre-genetics clinic aid.

People with intellectual disability (PWID) consistently identify the importance of health service information that is accessible and relevant. Resources tailored to the information and support needs of PWID can facilitate inclusivity in their health care (including access to genomic medicine) and improve healthcare outcomes. Despite the fact that PWID are commonly referred to genetics services, there is a lack of appropriate resources to help them prepare for their appointments. We therefore aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a booklet for PWID to read with their carers prior to their genetics appointment, to help them prepare for what they may experience. With input from Easy to Read experts and PWID who were members of the New South Wales (NSW) Council for Intellectual Disability, the information booklet 'Getting ready for your visit to the genetics clinic' was produced. Australian healthcare professionals (HCP) familiar with clinical genetics services were invited to complete an anonymous online survey designed to assess perceived relevance, readability, and utility of the resource. Recruitment of HCPs was pursued via affiliated clinical services and email distribution through clinical genetics organizations. Sixty-six HCPs completed and submitted the survey. The results demonstrated that HCPs believed the booklet represented a typical clinical genetics service appointment and that the majority would provide a copy of the resource to clients and their carers. They reported that the booklet was easy to understand and entailed appropriate content and images which were presented clearly and simply. Some minor modifications were recommended and incorporated into the resource. A model of customizable booklets such as this could be transferrable across clinical genetics services and guide development of other resources for PWID. This may help to reduce healthcare disparities, improve client satisfaction, and facilitate involvement of PWID in their own healthcare decisions.

Disclosure to genetic relatives without consent - Australian genetic professionals' awareness of the health privacy law.

BACKGROUND: When a genetic mutation is identified in a family member (proband), internationally, it is usually the proband's or another responsible family member's role to disclose the information to at-risk relatives. However, both active and passive non-disclosure in families occurs: choosing not to communicate the information or failing to communicate the information despite intention to do so, respectively. The ethical obligations to prevent harm to at-risk relatives and promote the duty of care by genetic health professionals (GHPs) is in conflict with Privacy laws and professional regulations that prohibits disclosure of information to a third party without the consent of the proband (duty of confidentiality). In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, amendments to Privacy legislation permits such disclosure to living genetic relatives with the process defined under guidelines although there is no legal duty to warn. This study assessed NSW GHP's awareness and experience of the legislation and guidelines. METHODS: An online survey collected demographics; theoretical knowledge; clinical scenarios to assess application knowledge; attitudes; confidence; experience with active non-disclosure. A link to correct answers was provided after completion. Knowledge scores above the median for non-parametric data or above the mean for parametric data were classified as 'good' or 'poor'. Chi square tests assessed associations between confidence and knowledge scores. RESULTS: While many of the 37 participants reported reading the guidelines, there was limited awareness of their scope and clinical application; that there is no legal duty to warn; and that the threat does not need to be imminent to warrant disclosure. No association between confidence and 'good' theoretical or applied clinical knowledge was identified. Uncertainty of their professional responsibility was identified and in the several case examples of active non-disclosure that were reported this uncertainty reflected the need for further understanding of the guidelines in regard to the processes required before disclosure was initiated. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further education and training about the guidelines associated with the legislation that would be relevant to support disclosure. The findings may inform future strategies to support introduction of policy changes in other jurisdictions where similar regulatory regimes are introduced.

"Why and how did this happen?": development and evaluation of an information resource for parents of children with CHD.

BACKGROUND: The causes of CHD are complex and often unknown, leading parents to ask how and why this has happened. Genetic counselling has been shown to benefit these parents by providing information and support; however, most parents currently do not receive this service. This study aimed to develop a brochure to determine whether an information resource could improve parents' knowledge about CHD causation and inheritance and increase psychosocial functioning. METHODS: In development, the resource was assessed against several readability scales and piloted. Parents of children attending preadmission clinic for surgery were included. Assessments occurred pre- and post-receiving the information resource using a purpose-designed knowledge measure and validated psychological measures. RESULTS: Participant's (n = 52) knowledge scores increased significantly from the pre-questionnaire ( ${\overline x}\, = \,5/10$ , sd = 2.086) to post-questionnaire ( $\overline x\, = \,7.88/10$ , sd = 2.094, p < 0.001), with all aware that CHD can be caused by genetic factors after reading the brochure. Perceived personal control also increased from pre- ( $\overline x\, = \,11.856/18$ , sd = 4.339) to post-brochure ( $\overline x\, = \,14.644/18$ , sd = 3.733, p < 0.001), and many reported reduced feelings of guilt. No negative emotional response to the brochure was reported. The information provided was considered relevant (88%), reassuring (86%), and 88% would recommend the brochure to other parents. However, some wanted more emotional support and assistance in what to tell their child. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the information resource significantly enhanced parents' knowledge of CHD causation and increased their psychosocial functioning. It is a valuable resource in the absence of genetic counselling; however, it should not replace formal genetic counselling when required.

Beyond the panel: preconception screening in consanguineous couples using the TruSight One "clinical exome".

PURPOSE: To provide proof of concept by broadening preconception screening beyond targeted testing to inform reproductive risk in consanguineous couples. METHODS: Consanguineous couples were screened for autosomal recessive and X-linked disorders using the TruSight One panel of 4,813 genes associated with human disease. RESULTS: We recruited 22 couples, of whom 15 elected to have sequencing. We found four couples to be at risk of autosomal recessive disorders, including one with a child affected by Poretti-Boltshauser syndrome (a diagnosis not made prior to the study) and another previously known to carry a ß-globin variant. Two couples were found to carry variants unrelated to known family history. These variants were in the genes C5orf42 (associated with Joubert syndrome and orofaciodigital syndrome) and GYS2 (associated with glycogen synthase deficiency). One known variant was not detected-a single exon deletion in FAM20C. We would not expect to identify this variant with the methodology employed. Of the four variants identified, only the ß-globin variant would have been found using available commercial preconception screening panels. CONCLUSION: Preconception screening of consanguineous couples for recessive and X-linked disorders using genomic sequencing is practicable, and is likely to detect many more at-risk couples than any targeted panel could achieve. A couples-based approach greatly reduces the associated analysis and counselling burden.