Evaluation of the Rosa Chatbot Providing Genetic Information to Patients at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing has become an integrated part of health care for patients with breast or ovarian cancer, and the increasing demand for genetic testing is accompanied by an increasing need for easy access to reliable genetic information for patients. Therefore, we developed a chatbot app (Rosa) that is able to perform humanlike digital conversations about genetic BRCA testing. OBJECTIVE: Before implementing this new information service in daily clinical practice, we wanted to explore 2 aspects of chatbot use: the perceived utility and trust in chatbot technology among healthy patients at risk of hereditary cancer and how interaction with a chatbot regarding sensitive information about hereditary cancer influences patients. METHODS: Overall, 175 healthy individuals at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer were invited to test the chatbot, Rosa, before and after genetic counseling. To secure a varied sample, participants were recruited from all cancer genetic clinics in Norway, and the selection was based on age, gender, and risk of having a BRCA pathogenic variant. Among the 34.9% (61/175) of participants who consented for individual interview, a selected subgroup (16/61, 26%) shared their experience through in-depth interviews via video. The semistructured interviews covered the following topics: usability, perceived usefulness, trust in the information received via the chatbot, how Rosa influenced the user, and thoughts about future use of digital tools in health care. The transcripts were analyzed using the stepwise-deductive inductive approach. RESULTS: The overall finding was that the chatbot was very welcomed by the participants. They appreciated the 24/7 availability wherever they were and the possibility to use it to prepare for genetic counseling and to repeat and ask questions about what had been said afterward. As Rosa was created by health care professionals, they also valued the information they received as being medically correct. Rosa was referred to as being better than Google because it provided specific and reliable answers to their questions. The findings were summed up in 3 concepts: "Anytime, anywhere"; "In addition, not instead"; and "Trustworthy and true." All participants (16/16) denied increased worry after reading about genetic testing and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in Rosa. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a genetic information chatbot has the potential to contribute to easy access to uniform information for patients at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, regardless of geographical location. The 24/7 availability of quality-assured information, tailored to the specific situation, had a reassuring effect on our participants. It was consistent across concepts that Rosa was a tool for preparation and repetition; however, none of the participants (0/16) supported that Rosa could replace genetic counseling if hereditary cancer was confirmed. This indicates that a chatbot can be a well-suited digital companion to genetic counseling.

Comparing prenatal screening experiences of Icelandic women who received false-positive and true-negative first-trimester combined screening results in Iceland in 2012-2016.

First-trimester combined screening (FTS) has been offered to all pregnant women in Iceland since 2003. Individuals with high-risk FTS results are offered an invasive test option with a ≤1% risk of fetal loss. This study gives insight into the prenatal screening and diagnosis experiences and preferences of 101 women who underwent FTS in Iceland in the years 2012-2016, comparing the experience of those who received false-positive FTS results to those who received true-negative results. Retrospective patient-reported anxiety levels at the time of receiving FTS results were significantly higher in those who received false-positive results compared to those who received true-negative results. For a subset of these participants, the anxiety lasted through pregnancy, and for a smaller subset, it lasted even longer. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is currently not offered in Iceland, aside from the rare exceptional case. Given the extremely low false-positive rates of NIPT, we believe NIPT is worth considering as Iceland's standard first-tier screening method for trisomy 13, 18, and 21. We believe the findings of this study are beneficial not only for Iceland but also for other countries where FTS is the first-tier prenatal screening method or the only offered test. Additionally, only 21% of participants in our study reported that they had heard of NIPT, which emphasizes the need for comprehensive NIPT pretest information to be available prior to its uptake to ensure informed and autonomous decision-making.

The Global State of the Genetic Counseling Profession.

The profession of genetic counseling (also called genetic counselling in many countries) began nearly 50 years ago in the United States, and has grown internationally in the past 30 years. While there have been many papers describing the profession of genetic counseling in individual countries or regions, data remains incomplete and has been published in diverse journals with limited access. As a result of the 2016 Transnational Alliance of Genetic Counseling (TAGC) conference in Barcelona, Spain, and the 2017 World Congress of Genetic Counselling in the UK, we endeavor to describe as fully as possible the global state of genetic counseling as a profession. We estimate that in 2018 there are nearly 7000 genetic counselors with the profession established or developing in no less than 28 countries.

Researcher-researched relationship in qualitative research: Shifts in positions and researcher vulnerability.

BACKGROUND: The researcher role is highly debated in qualitative research. This article concerns the researcher-researched relationship. METHODS: A group of health science researchers anchored in various qualitative research traditions gathered in reflective group discussions over a period of two years. RESULTS: Efforts to establish an anti-authoritarian relationship between researcher and researched, negotiation of who actually "rules" the research agenda, and experiences of shifts in "inferior" and "superior" knowledge positions emerged as central and intertwined themes throughout the discussions. The dual role as both insider and outsider, characteristic of qualitative approaches, seemed to lead to power relations and researcher vulnerability which manifested in tangible ways. CONCLUSION: Shifting positions and vulnerability surfaced in various ways in the projects. They nonetheless indicated a number of similar experiences which can shed light on the researcher-researched relationship. These issues could benefit from further discussion in the qualitative health research literature.