Creation and beta testing of a "choose your own adventure" digital simulation to reinforce motivational interviewing skills in genetic counseling.

Standardized patients and/or role-playing are commonly used for practicing genetic counseling (GC) skills. Use of digital simulation, incorporating gamification elements, would require fewer resources to sustain than standardized patients. This manuscript reports steps taken and the lessons learned from creating a digital "Choose your own adventure" simulation in which students select preferred dialog for a genetic counselor who is seeing an adult patient to discuss genetic testing for the known pathogenic variant that caused familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) in their father. The case has three endings, one of which is attained by selecting options that are mostly consistent with motivational interviewing counseling techniques. We conducted a preliminary evaluation of our beta version among nine GC students and one educator using a survey to assess acceptability and appropriateness as well as to elicit open-ended feedback. All participants agreed or strongly agreed with statements indicating the case was acceptable, appropriate, and fun. Users particularly appreciated the immediate feedback given throughout the case simulation. Many users wanted more options to select from and listed various other recommendations, including several which would require substantial resources to implement.

Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer.

Objective: Evaluate an intervention to increase family communication (FC) of positive hereditary cancer test results using the Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions (FDECI). Methods: We developed 'programme theory' during the FDECI development phase by aligning intervention components with behavior change techniques (BCTs) and theoretical factors expected to improve FC. During the feasibility phase, we obtained feedback from 12 stakeholder interviews. Results: Intervention components aligned with a total of 14 unique BCTs for which prior evidence links the BCT to theoretical factors that influence behavior change. Constructive stakeholder feedback included: more information desired, rewording to support autonomy by highlighting options, and improvements to navigation, visuals, and audio. Positive comments included: comprehensiveness of materials, modeling of conversations, and usefulness of the materials for helping a person prepare to share positive test results. Conclusion: The first FDECI phases were helpful for improving the intervention and planning our ongoing effectiveness and future implementation phases. Innovation: Our application of the FDECI is novel, including plans to test our 'programme theory' using coincidence analysis (CNA) to determine who accesses which intervention materials, how utilizing certain materials impact the aligned theoretical factors, and whether these in turn make a difference in the behavioral outcome.