Adolescent Decision-Making Involvement in the Receipt of Genomic Testing Results.

OBJECTIVE: To examine hypothesized predictors of adolescent and parent involvement in the decision about which genomic results to receive. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study during phase 3 of the electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Dyads reported on how they preferred to make choices (adolescent only, parent only, or jointly). Dyads used a decision tool to choose independently the categories of genetic testing results they wanted. We summarized independent choices, identifying initially discordant dyads. After a facilitated discussion, dyads made a joint decision. Dyads then completed the Decision-Making Involvement Scale (DMIS). We conducted bivariate correlations between DMIS subscale scores and the following hypothesized predictors: adolescent age, preference for adolescent to make their own decision, and discordance on initial independent choices. RESULTS: The sample included 163 adolescents, aged 13-17 years and parents (86.5% mothers). Dyads lacked agreement on how they wanted to make the final decision (weighted kappa statistic 0.04; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.16). These preferences, as well as the adolescent's age and adolescent-parent discordance on initial choices for specific categories of genetic testing results to receive, were associated with subsequent decision-making involvement behaviors as measured by DMIS subscales. Dyads with discordant initial preferences had significantly greater scores on the DMIS Joint/Options subscale than those with concordant initial preferences (adolescent report M [SD] 2.46 [0.60] vs 2.10 [0.68], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Through facilitated discussion, adolescents and parents can work together and reach agreement about receipt of genomic screening results.

Preparedness and training of genetic counselors practicing in inpatient settings.

As rapid genomic testing technology increasingly allows for real-time answers that could alter management for acutely ill patients, opportunities for genetic counselors to work in inpatient settings will increase. However, genetic counselors' preparedness and the training provided by graduate programs to work in inpatient settings are unknown. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 genetic counselors who provided services in varied inpatient settings to assess genetic counselors' readiness for inpatient positions. We also surveyed members of the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) about inpatient training practices of genetic counseling graduate programs. Genetic counselors were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Inpatient Special Interest Group listserv and graduate program faculty were recruited through the AGCPD listserv. Some challenges reported by genetic counselors in inpatient settings included working in a fast-paced hospital environment which necessitated focused interactions with patients; collaborating with diverse providers who may not understand the role of genetic counselors; and navigating grief experiences of families and of themselves as a provider. Although genetic counselors felt that many of their skills developed in graduate school were transferrable to the inpatient setting, those who had minimal or no inpatient exposure in graduate school often described feeling unprepared for working in the inpatient setting. The majority of AGCPD respondents (23/28) indicated their program provided some type of exposure to the inpatient setting for students, the most common (22/23) being an inpatient clinical rotation, which suggests many graduate programs are already recognizing the importance of providing inpatient training. Our findings indicate that while many skills are transferrable to inpatient positions, genetic counselors face unique challenges in inpatient settings. Our results suggest that graduate exposure to the inpatient setting and professional support of inpatient genetic counselors are beneficial to support genetic counselors' preparedness to take on inpatient positions.

Young adults' reasoning for involving a parent in a genomic decision-making research study.

Young adults have increasing genomic testing opportunities; however, little is known about how equipped they feel about making decisions to learn personal genomic information. We conducted qualitative interviews with 19 young adults, ages 18-21 years old, enrolled in a research study where they made decisions about learning personal genomic risk for developing preventable, treatable, and adult-onset conditions and carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. Participants had the option to include a parent in their study visit and the decision-making process. The goal of this project was to explore young adults' reasons for involving or not involving a parent in the study and to assess young adults' perspectives about parental roles in their healthcare. Nine participants included a parent in the study and ten did not include a parent. Eleven participants received genomic test results before the interview, while eight participants had not yet received their results at the time of the interview. The study team developed a coding guide and coded interview transcripts inductively and deductively using an interpretive descriptive-analytic approach. Logistical issues dominated solo participants' reasons for not involving a parent in the study, whereas those who involved a parent often cited a close relationship with the parent and the parent's previous involvement in the participant's healthcare as reasons for involving them. Both groups of participants described gradually transitioning to independent healthcare decision-making with age and felt their comfort in medical decision-making depends on the severity of and their familiarity with the situation. Participants recommended that future genomic researchers or clinicians give young adults the option to involve a parent or friend as a support person in research or clinical visits. Although young adults may have different journeys toward independent healthcare decision-making, some may benefit from continued parental or peer involvement after reaching the age of legal adulthood.

Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network.

PURPOSE: As genomic sequencing becomes more common, medically actionable secondary findings will increasingly be returned to health care providers (HCPs), who will be faced with managing the resulting patient care. These findings are generally unsolicited, ie, unrelated to the sequencing indication and/or ordered by another clinician. METHODS: To understand the impact of receiving unsolicited results, we interviewed HCPs who received genomic results for patients enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network, which returned results on >100 actionable genes to eMERGE participants and HCPs. RESULTS: In total, 16 HCPs across 3 eMERGE sites were interviewed about their experience of receiving a positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic), negative, or variant of uncertain significance result for a patient enrolled in eMERGE Phase III and about managing their patient on the basis of the result. Although unsolicited, HCPs felt responsible for managing the patient's resulting medical care. HCPs indicated that clinical utility depended on the actionability of results, and whereas comfort levels varied, confidence was improved by the availability of subspecialist consults. HCPs were concerned about patient anxiety, insurability, and missing an actionable result in the electronic health record. CONCLUSION: Our findings help inform best practices for return of unsolicited genomic screening findings in the future.

Reanalysis of eMERGE phase III sequence variants in 10,500 participants and infrastructure to support the automated return of knowledge updates.

PURPOSE: The clinical genomics knowledgebase is dynamic with variant classifications changing as newly identified cases, additional population data, and other evidence become available. This is a challenge for the clinical laboratory because of limited resource availability for variant reassessment. METHODS: Throughout the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics phase III program, clinical sites associated with the Mass General Brigham/Broad sequencing center received automated, real-time notifications when reported variants were reclassified. In this study, we summarized the nature of these reclassifications and described the proactive reassessment framework we used for the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics program data set to identify variants most likely to undergo reclassification. RESULTS: Reanalysis of 1855 variants led to the reclassification of 2% (n = 45) of variants, affecting 0.6% (n = 67) of participants. Of these reclassifications, 78% (n = 35) were high-impact changes affecting reportability, with 8 variants downgraded from likely pathogenic/pathogenic to variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and 27 variants upgraded from VUS to likely pathogenic/pathogenic. Most upgraded variants (67%) were initially classified as VUS-Favor Pathogenic, highlighting the benefit of VUS subcategorization. The most common reason for reclassification was new published case data and/or functional evidence. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of periodic sequence variant reevaluation and the need for automated approaches to advance routine implementation of variant reevaluations in clinical practice.

The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network.

PURPOSE: The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants. METHODS: RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution's internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant's disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052). CONCLUSION: The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.

Experiences of adolescents and their parents after receiving adolescents' genomic screening results.

There has been considerable debate over whether adolescents should have the opportunity to learn genetic information about adult-onset disease risk and carrier status without a clinical indication. Adolescents face increasing opportunities to learn more about such genetic risks through the return of secondary findings from clinical genomic testing, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and research opportunities. However, little is known about the perspectives of adolescents who have received genomic screening results. We conducted separate qualitative interviews with 15 adolescents and their parents who enrolled in a research protocol where they decided which genomic screening results to receive for the adolescent for up to 32 conditions informed by 84 genes. The goal of these interviews was to explore the impact of adolescents learning genomic results without a clinical indication for screening. Of the participating dyads, four received positive results for a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant for an autosomal dominant (AD) condition, five received carrier results for a heterozygous P/LP variant for an autosomal recessive (AR) condition, and six received negative results. An interpretive descriptive qualitative approach was used. Interview transcripts were coded using a guide developed by the study team based on themes that emerged from the interviews. Degree of recall and description of results, actionability, and emotional responses differed according to the types of results received. However, all participants were satisfied with their decision to learn results, and most did not report any lasting psychological harms. Participants adapted to genomic information about themselves, even after learning about unexpected increased risk for future health problems. Our findings support the position that, whenever possible, perspectives and wishes of adolescents should be strongly considered and respected in the decision-making process regarding genetic testing.

A report of the AGCPD task force to evaluate associations between select admissions requirements, demographics, and performance on ABGC certification examination.

Graduation from a genetic counseling graduate program accredited by the Accreditation Council of Genetic Counseling and certification obtained by passing the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) certification examination are increasingly required to practice as a genetic counselor in the USA. Despite the ABGC certification examination serving as a gateway to the genetic counseling career, there have been no research studies to date that have examined what variables are associated with examination performance. Therefore, the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors established a Task Force to assess whether trainee demographics, Grade point average (GPA) and Graduate Record Exam (GRE®) percentile scores are associated with passing the ABGC certification examination on the first attempt. We surveyed accredited genetic counseling graduate programs in North America and gathered demographic data, admissions variables, and certification examination outcome data for 1,494 trainees from 24 training programs, representing approximately 60.5% of matriculants between 2007 and 2016. Univariable analysis was performed to assess associations between admissions variables and categorical outcome (pass vs. fail) on the certification examination using Wilcoxon rank-sum or Fisher's exact test. Variables significantly associated with the categorical board outcome were then entered in a stepwise model selection procedure. In stepwise logistic regression, trainees with higher GPA (OR = 3.41; 95% CI = 1.99, 5.83), higher verbal (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) and quantitative (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) GRE® scores, female trainees (OR = 2.95; 95% CI = 1.70, 5.12), and White trainees (OR 3.37; 95% CI = 2.14, 5.30) had higher odds of passing the certification examination on the first attempt. As programs move to a holistic approach to graduate admissions in order to improve access to the genetic counseling profession, our results may influence programs to provide additional preparation for the certification examination for all trainees. In addition, genetic counseling professional organizations should continue to work together to assess and eliminate outcome disparities in admissions, training, and certification processes.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Comprehension and personal value of negative non-diagnostic genetic panel testing.

Increasing interest and pursuit of genetic testing by the general public have raised concerns about their understanding and use of their results. While most research has focused on individuals receiving positive genetic test results, there have been limited investigations assessing the understanding and utility of receiving negative genetic test results. Individuals who receive a negative (or uninformative) genetic test result may not appreciate the limitations of genetic testing and their residual disease risk. The goals of this study were to explore participant understanding and perceived utility of negative non-diagnostic genetic test results. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who received negative non-diagnostic genetic test results from the electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network (eMERGE) testing panel at Northwestern University. A total of 17 participants were interviewed. While many expressed a lack of understanding of genetics and the relationship between genes, disease, and environment, most acknowledged that they had residual risk to develop a health problem and should continue with their routine health management. Additionally, participants expressed that their negative results had personal value, by providing them peace of mind and learning additional knowledge about themselves and their health. Participants did not anticipate that results would have an impact on their lifestyle, but felt the results were useful for sharing with their physician and could inform future genetic testing decisions. While mostly positive, some participants were disappointed not to learn more individualized results. While a more thorough exploration is necessary, findings in this study can aid efforts to improve or innovate informed consent for genomic testing, as well as scalable modes of result return that foster comprehension following negative genetic testing.

Mitochondrial replacement therapy: Genetic counselors' experiences, knowledge, and opinions.

Mitochondrial disorders affect at least 1 in 5,000 individuals worldwide and are often incurable and fatal. Mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) is an in vitro fertilization technique used to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disorders. Currently, MRT is the only approach that provides mothers who carry a pathogenic variant in their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the opportunity to have a biological child without a mitochondrial disease. MRT involves the combination of nuclear DNA from the egg of the carrier mother and the cytoplasm from an oocyte donor, which contains healthy mitochondria. While MRT was approved for use in the UK in 2015, the ban on congressional funding for research on 'heritable genetic modification' has made MRT unavailable within the US borders. This survey-based study aimed to describe genetic counselors' experience, knowledge, and opinions about MRT. Additionally, we also assessed whether genetic counselors' comfort discussing MRT with patients, and feelings about clinical use of MRT in the United States changed after providing information about MRT compared with baseline. Responses were received from 139 genetic counselors in North America. Findings indicate low awareness and knowledge about MRT among participants. However, more participants expressed comfort with discussing MRT with patients and more participants were able to form opinions about statements about MRT after they were provided with information about MRT. This study is the first to assess genetic counselors' opinions toward MRT and suggests the need for more education about novel technologies such as MRT among genetic counselors.

Public Attitudes toward Consent and Data Sharing in Biobank Research: A Large Multi-site Experimental Survey in the US.

Individuals participating in biobanks and other large research projects are increasingly asked to provide broad consent for open-ended research use and widespread sharing of their biosamples and data. We assessed willingness to participate in a biobank using different consent and data sharing models, hypothesizing that willingness would be higher under more restrictive scenarios. Perceived benefits, concerns, and information needs were also assessed. In this experimental survey, individuals from 11 US healthcare systems in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network were randomly allocated to one of three hypothetical scenarios: tiered consent and controlled data sharing; broad consent and controlled data sharing; or broad consent and open data sharing. Of 82,328 eligible individuals, exactly 13,000 (15.8%) completed the survey. Overall, 66% (95% CI: 63%-69%) of population-weighted respondents stated they would be willing to participate in a biobank; willingness and attitudes did not differ between respondents in the three scenarios. Willingness to participate was associated with self-identified white race, higher educational attainment, lower religiosity, perceiving more research benefits, fewer concerns, and fewer information needs. Most (86%, CI: 84%-87%) participants would want to know what would happen if a researcher misused their health information; fewer (51%, CI: 47%-55%) would worry about their privacy. The concern that the use of broad consent and open data sharing could adversely affect participant recruitment is not supported by these findings. Addressing potential participants' concerns and information needs and building trust and relationships with communities may increase acceptance of broad consent and wide data sharing in biobank research.

Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network.

PURPOSE: Secondary findings are typically offered in an all or none fashion when sequencing is used for clinical purposes. This study aims to describe the process of offering categorical and granular choices for results in a large research consortium. METHODS: Within the third phase of the electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network, several sites implemented studies that allowed participants to choose the type of results they wanted to receive from a multigene sequencing panel. Sites were surveyed to capture the details of the implementation protocols and results of these choices. RESULTS: Across the ten eMERGE sites, 4664 participants including adolescents and adults were offered some type of choice. Categories of choices offered and methods for selecting categories varied. Most participants (94.5%) chose to learn all genetic results, while 5.5% chose subsets of results. Several sites allowed participants to change their choices at various time points, and 0.5% of participants made changes. CONCLUSION: Offering choices that include learning some results is important and should be a dynamic process to allow for changes in scientific knowledge, participant age group, and individual preference.

Decisional conflict among adolescents and parents making decisions about genomic sequencing results.

Genomic testing of adolescents is increasing yet engaging them in decision-making is not routine. We assessed decisional conflict in adolescents and a parent making independent decisions about actual genomic testing results and factors that influenced their choices. We enrolled 163 dyads consisting of an adolescent (13-17 years) not selected based on a specific clinical indication and one parent. After independently choosing categories of conditions to learn for the adolescent, participants completed the validated Decisional Conflict Scale and a survey assessing factors influencing their respective choices. Adolescents had higher decisional conflict scores than parents (15.6 [IQR:4.7-25.6] vs 9.4 [IQR:1.6-21.9]; P = .0007). Adolescents with clinically significant decisional conflict were less likely to choose to learn all results than adolescents with lower decisional conflict (19.6% vs 80.4%; P < .0001) and less likely to report their choices were influenced by actionability of results (33.3% vs 18.9%; P = .044) and feeling confident they can deal with the results (71.2% vs 91.9%; P = .0005). Our findings suggest higher decisional conflict in adolescents may influence the type and amount of genomic results they wish to learn. Additional research assessing decisional conflict and factors influencing testing choices among adolescents in clinical settings are required.

The gendered pay gap in genetic counseling.

A gendered pay gap in the genetic counseling profession has been identified in recent years, though reasons for its existence have not been explored in depth. The primary aim of this study was to determine what demographic characteristics and career experiences influence annual salary rates and which of those factors differ between male and female genetic counselors. The secondary aim of this study was to determine whether genetic counselors perceive a pay gap and to identify attitudes toward their salaries. Surveys were sent to the nearly 4,000 genetic counselors who are members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), and we report results from 355 respondents. A significant interaction was found between gender and position (direct vs. non-direct patient care). In the best-fitting multiple regression model, male genetic counselors earned $23,736 more than females in non-direct patient care roles (p < .001) and $1,552 more than females in direct patient care roles (p < .001). Years of experience, leadership experience score, negotiation attempts, licensure, and certification were all found to be predictors of annual salary. Most female genetic counselors perceived there to be a pay gap and most male genetic counselors did not (p = .01). Results from this study could contribute to changes in employment and compensation practices, as well as impact genetic counselors' strategies in role- and salary-based conversations.

Giving adolescents a voice: the types of genetic information adolescents choose to learn and why.

PURPOSE: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics supports parents' opting in or out of secondary analysis of 59 genes when their child has clinical exome/genome sequencing. We explored the reasons adolescents choose to learn certain types of results and the reasons they want to involve or not involve parents in decision-making. METHODS: Adolescents recruited without clinical indication were offered independent, followed by joint choices with a parent to learn genomic results. After making independent choices, adolescent/parent dyads were interviewed to explore the reasons for their choices. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The constant comparative method was used to analyze 64 purposefully selected transcripts that included 31 from adolescents who excluded some or all potential results. RESULTS: Three major themes informed adolescents' choices: (1) actionability of information, (2) knowledge seeking, and (3) psychological impact. Of adolescents who independently excluded some conditions (n=31), 58% changed their initial choices during the joint interview due to parental influence or improved understanding. Nearly all adolescents (98%) wanted to be involved in the decision-making process, and 53% wanted to make choices independently. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute empirical evidence to support the refinement of professional guidelines for adolescents' engagement and preferences in genetic testing decisions.

Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results.

PURPOSE: Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term "unsolicited genomic results" (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and (1) perceived need for actionability, (2) impact on patients, (3) health care workflow, (4) return of results process, and (5) responsibility for results. RESULTS: Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based "paths" for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs. CONCLUSION: The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.

A Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression model of multiple informant family health histories.

BACKGROUND: Family health history (FHH) inherently involves collecting proxy reports of health statuses of related family members. Traditionally, such information has been collected from a single informant. More recently, research has suggested that a multiple informant approach to collecting FHH results in improved individual risk assessments. Likewise, recent work has emphasized the importance of incorporating health-related behaviors into FHH-based risk calculations. Integrating both multiple accounts of FHH with behavioral information on family members represents a significant methodological challenge as such FHH data is hierarchical in nature and arises from potentially error-prone processes. METHODS: In this paper, we introduce a statistical model that addresses these challenges using informative priors for background variation in disease prevalence and the effect of other, potentially correlated, variables while accounting for the nested structure of these data. Our empirical example is drawn from previously published data on families with a history of diabetes. RESULTS: The results of the comparative model assessment suggest that simply accounting for the structured nature of multiple informant FHH data improves classification accuracy over the baseline and that incorporating family member health-related behavioral information into the model is preferred over alternative specifications. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed modelling framework is a flexible solution to integrate multiple informant FHH for risk prediction purposes.

Activating Communal Coping Related to Diabetes Risk in Mexican-Heritage Families.

We investigate how interpersonal ties influence communication about type 2 diabetes risk and encouragement to maintain or adopt a healthy lifestyle between family members of Mexican heritage, after a family history-based risk assessment intervention. Results suggest that individuals are more likely to initiate risk communication with another family member if they are close to, already seek advice from, or discuss health with him or her. Risk communication precedes encouragement, which is initiated by the older generation of the family. Understanding the role of interpersonal relationships in Mexican-heritage families can help identify who best to target in future health behavior interventions.

Investigation of the Use of a Family Health History Application in Genetic Counseling.

The paper-based pedigree is the current standard for family health history (FHH) documentation in genetic counseling. Several tools for electronic capture of family health data have been developed to improve re-use and accessibility, data quality and standardization, ease of updating, and integration with electronic medical records. One such tool, the tablet-based Proband application, provides a flexible approach to data capture in dynamic and diverse clinical settings. This study compared Proband FHH collection to paper-based methods and investigated the usability of Proband in a clinical setting. After one use by 23 genetic counselors and students, Proband had 91% accuracy with a FHH audio scenario, which was significantly less (p < 0.001) than paper's 96% accuracy. These differences were attributed to incorrect or missing ages of grandparents (p < 0.001) and great-aunts/uncles (p = 0.012) and missing documentation of consanguinity (p < 0.001). Possible explanations for these differences include greater experience with paper FHH documentation and pre-populated prompts for consanguinity on the paper template used. Proband's perceived usability increased with use, with individual System Usability Scores increasing between first and last use (p = 0.033). We conclude that tools for dynamic, provider-driven FHH documentation such as Proband show promise for improving risk assessment accuracy and quality patient care.