Interpretations of the Term "Actionable" when Discussing Genetic Test Results: What you Mean Is Not What I Heard.

In genomic medicine, the familiarity and inexactness of the term "actionable" can lead to multiple interpretations and mistaken beliefs about realistic treatment options. As part of a larger study focusing on public attitudes toward policies for the return of secondary genomic results, we looked at how members of the lay public interpret the term "medically actionable" in the context of genetic testing. We also surveyed a convenience sample of oncologists as part of a separate study and asked them to define the term "medically actionable." After being provided with a definition of the term, 21 out of 60 (35%) layperson respondents wrote an additional action not specified in the provided definition (12 mentioned "cure" and 9 mentioned environment or behavioral change) and 17 (28%) indicated "something can be done" with no action specified. In contrast, 52 surveyed oncologists did not mention environment, behavioral change, or cure. Based on our findings, we propose that rather than using the term "actionable" alone, providers should also say "what they mean" to reduce miscommunication and confusion that could negatively impact medical decision-making. Lastly, to guide clinicians during patient- provider discussion about genetic test results, we provide examples of phrasing to facilitate clearer communication and understanding of the term "actionable."

Physician Experiences and Understanding of Genomic Sequencing in Oncology.

The amount of information produced by genomic sequencing is vast, technically complicated, and can be difficult to interpret. Appropriately tailoring genomic information for non-geneticists is an essential next step in the clinical use of genomic sequencing. To initiate development of a framework for genomic results communication, we conducted eighteen qualitative interviews with oncologists who had referred adult cancer patients to a matched tumor-normal tissue genomic sequencing study. In our qualitative analysis, we found varied levels of clinician knowledge relating to sequencing technology, the scope of the tumor genomic sequencing study, and incidental germline findings. Clinicians expressed a perceived need for more genetics education. Additionally, they had a variety of suggestions for improving results reports and possible resources to aid in results interpretation. Most clinicians felt genetic counselors were needed when incidental germline findings were identified. Our research suggests that more consistent genetics education is imperative in ensuring the proper utilization of genomic sequencing in cancer care. Clinician suggestions for results interpretation resources and results report modifications could be used to improve communication. Clinicians' perceived need to involve genetic counselors when incidental germline findings were found suggests genetic specialists could play a critical role in ensuring patients receive appropriate follow-up.

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing.

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large-scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre-test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single-gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post-counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow-up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.

Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports.

There has been very limited study of patients with chronic disease receiving potentially actionable genomic based results or the utilization of genetic counselors in the online result delivery process. We conducted a randomized controlled trial on 199 patients with chronic disease each receiving eight personalized and actionable complex disease reports online. Primary study aims were to assess the impact of in-person genomic counseling on 1) causal attribution of disease risk, 2) personal awareness of disease risk, and 3) perceived risk of developing a particular disease. Of 98 intervention arm participants (mean age = 57.8; 39% female) randomized for in-person genomic counseling, 76 (78%) were seen. In contrast, control arm participants (n = 101; mean age = 58.5; 54% female) were initially not offered genomic counseling as part of the study protocol but were able to access in-person genomic counseling, if they requested it, 3-months post viewing of at least one test report and post-completion of the study-specific follow-up survey. A total of 64 intervention arm and 59 control arm participants completed follow-up survey measures. We found that participants receiving in-person genomic counseling had enhanced objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution for multiple complex diseases. Genomic counseling was associated with lowered participant causal beliefs in genetic influence across all eight diseases, compared to control participants. Our findings also illustrate that for the majority of diseases under study, intervention arm participants believed they knew their genetic risk status better than control arm subjects. Disease risk was modified for the majority during genomic counseling, due to the assessment of more comprehensive family history. In conclusion, for patients receiving personalized and actionable genomic results through a web portal, genomic counseling enhanced their objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution to multiple common diseases. These results support the development of additional genomic counseling interventions to ensure a high level of patient comprehension and improve patient-centered health outcomes.

Racial differences in knowledge and beliefs about Alzheimer disease.

Alzheimer disease (AD) is a growing public health problem that disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans. Given that the perceptions of illness can influence response to treatment options and coping with disease burden, we examined differences between African Americans and whites with regard to their attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about AD. A total of 301 participants (mean age = 57 y; 80% female; 47% African American) were surveyed by telephone, with overrepresentation of caregivers and first-degree relatives of people with AD (62% of sample). After controlling for potentially confounding covariates, the 2 groups differed in terms of the following: (1) their knowledge about the disease (eg, recognizing that AD is not a part of normal aging); (2) concern about AD (eg, worry about developing the disease); (3) beliefs about putative causes of AD (eg, stress); and 4) beliefs about the effectiveness of various options for reducing risk of and treating AD (eg, physical activity). Findings suggest that AD outreach and education efforts may do well to take into account divergent illness perceptions across racial and ethnic groups. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in more representative samples and to identify factors that explain these racial differences.

Public opinion about Alzheimer disease among blacks, hispanics, and whites: results from a national survey.

Recent research has documented notable differences in knowledge, awareness, and cultural beliefs about Alzheimer disease (AD) among groups defined by race and ethnicity. The present study was conducted to assess racial differences in knowledge and attitudes about AD among a national sample of adults. Data from 1,176 adults aged 35 years and over (48.6% White, 25.7% Black, and 25.8% Hispanic) obtained via telephone interview were used in this study. Although some notable group differences defined by race/ethnicity were observed, more similarities in patterns of response were discovered than expected. Black and Hispanic respondents were significantly more likely to believe that AD is a normal part of aging, but were more optimistic about future advances in research than White participants. Compared with White and Black respondents, Hispanics were more likely to report feeling well-prepared for handling a diagnosis of AD in a family member. Overall, the results suggest that misconceptions about AD remain among large segments of the population, that AD remains a source of significant concern, and that continued efforts are needed to educate the public about this disease.