Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk.

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Latinx attitudes, barriers, and experiences with genetic counseling and testing: A systematic review.

As genetics is increasingly used across clinical settings, there is a need to understand the impact and experiences of diverse patients. This review systematically examined research literature on Latinx experiences with genetic counseling and genetic testing (GC/GT) in the United States, synthesizing key themes and knowledge gaps pertaining to both patient experience and hypothetical scenarios. Findings were based on a systematic search, inclusion, and thematic analysis of 81 empirical peer-reviewed articles published from January 1990 to July 2019 pertaining to Latinx populations and GC/GT. Studies most commonly addressed Latinas' perspectives on GC/GT in prenatal settings or for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Costs, referrals, and communication were significant barriers to accessing genetic services for many Latinx patients, particularly those with low English proficiency (LEP). Studies highlighted difficulties accessing and communicating in healthcare settings, and how medical context and prior experience with healthcare workers and institutions influenced GC/GT decision-making. Providers' implicit biases about Latinx patients negatively impacted their care and impeded communication. Despite low awareness of cancer GT, Latinx patients often reported interest in learning more about GC/GT or unmet needs for GT discussion and provider involvement. This systematic review identified areas where providers can take action to improve Latinx experiences with GC/GT. Clinicians should elicit and respond to patient preferences about shared decision-making. For patients with low numeracy or LEP, providers should consider tailored educational and communication techniques. Most studies focused on HBOC and prenatal testing, and Latinx patients are heterogeneous, leaving many research questions about Latinx experience with GT/GC in other clinical areas.

A genetic counseling needs assessment of Mexico.

BACKGROUND: While genetic counseling has expanded globally, Mexico has not adopted it as a separate profession. Given the rapid expansion of genetic and genomic services, understanding the current genetic counseling landscape in Mexico is crucial to improving healthcare outcomes. METHODS: Our needs assessment strategy has two components. First, we gathered quantitative data about genetics education and medical geneticists' geographic distribution through an exhaustive compilation of available information across several medical schools and public databases. Second, we conducted semi-structured interviews of 19 key-informants from 10 Mexican states remotely with digital recording and transcription. RESULTS: Across 32 states, ~54% of enrolled medical students receive no medical genetics training, and only Mexico City averages at least one medical geneticist per 100,000 people. Barriers to genetic counseling services include: geographic distribution of medical geneticists, lack of access to diagnostic tools, patient health literacy and cultural beliefs, and education in medical genetics/genetic counseling. Participants reported generally positive attitudes towards a genetic counseling profession; concerns regarding a current shortage of available jobs for medical geneticists persisted. CONCLUSION: To create a foundation that can support a genetic counseling profession in Mexico, the clinical significance of medical genetics must be promoted nationwide. Potential approaches include: requiring medical genetics coursework, developing community genetics services, and increasing jobs for medical geneticists.