The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Germline cancer genetic testing has become a standard evidence-based practice, with established risk reduction and screening guidelines for genetic carriers. Access to genetic services is limited in many places, which leaves many genetic carriers unidentified and at risk for late diagnosis of cancers and poor outcomes. This poses a problem for childhood cancer survivors, as this is a population with an increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN) due to cancer therapy or inherited cancer predisposition. The ENGaging and Activating cancer survivors in Genetic services (ENGAGE) study evaluates the effectiveness of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing. METHODS: The ENGAGE study is a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study population which tests a clinical intervention while gathering information on its delivery during the effectiveness trial and its potential for future implementation among 360 participants. Participants are randomized into three arms. Those randomized to Arm A receive genetic services via videoconferencing, those in Arm B receive these services by phone, and those randomized to Arm C will receive usual care services. DISCUSSION: With many barriers to accessing genetic services, innovative delivery models are needed to address this gap and increase uptake of genetic services. The ENGAGE study evaluates the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. This study assesses the uptake in remote genetic services and identify barriers to uptake to inform future recommendations and a theoretically-informed process evaluation which can inform modifications to enhance dissemination beyond this study population and to realize the benefits of precision medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04455698) on July 2, 2020.

Incorporating telehealth education into the genetic counseling curriculum.

As the provision of telehealth genetic counseling (THGC) services continues to expand, it is imperative that genetic counseling students gain proficiency in telehealth service delivery. To prepare students to provide THGC services, the MSGC program at the University of Pennsylvania has included didactic sessions on THGC, THGC role plays, THGC standardized patient sessions, and THGC fieldwork experiences and clinical rotations. This article highlights best practices in THGC and guidance for Master of Science in Genetic Counseling (MSGC) programs training the next generation of genetic counselors providing THGC services.

Telehealth for genetic counseling: A systematic evidence review.

Telehealth options, such as telephone counseling or videoconferencing, for service delivery in genetic counseling are becoming more widely accepted. However, until now, there has not been a systematic review of the literature focused specifically on genetic counseling outcomes for telehealth. We performed a systematic evidence review to compare telehealth genetic counseling (THGC), including videoconferencing and telephone counseling, across specialties to in-person genetic counseling (IPGC) for a range of outcomes specific to patient and provider experiences and access to care. Several biomedical databases were queried up to January 11, 2021, to identify original research evaluating THGC. Through this search, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria including 13 randomized controlled trials and 29 non-randomized observational studies encompassing 13,901 patients. Most included studies focused only on cancer genetic counseling; however, adult, pediatric, and prenatal specialties were also represented. The majority of studies evaluated patient and/or access to care outcomes. Though most studies reported high patient satisfaction with THGC, as well as comparable rates of trust and rapport, confidence in privacy, health behavior changes, and psychosocial outcomes, few represented diverse populations. Data of provider experiences were limited and varied with more disadvantages noted compared with patient experiences, particularly in studies involving telephone genetic counseling. Studies consistently reported a decrease in the patients' costs and time required for travel when patients are seen via THGC compared to IPGC with a similar reduction in costs to the health system. Overall, results from our evidence synthesis suggest THGC is non-inferior or comparable to IPGC across many domains, even considering that many of the studies included in this review were conducted with telehealth systems, notably videoconferencing, that were less robust and reliable than what is available today. There are notable limitations within this body of literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our analysis. We outline several recommendations for future studies.

Attitudes about the use of internet support groups and the impact among parents of children with Cornelia de Lange syndrome.

There is an abundance of information in the literature on patient experiences with Internet support groups (ISGs). However, studies exploring these experiences in a rare disease population are scarce, even though these families are often at a disadvantage for resources, reliable information, and support. The aim of the current study was to explore the experiences with ISGs for parents of children with Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS), a rare genetic diagnosis, in order to better understand the impact on emotional support and their child's medical care. Focus groups were conducted to inform the design of a large-scale internet survey. The survey asked parents closed- and open-ended questions regarding experiences with ISGs, with a focus on the psychosocial, medical, and logistical aspects. The survey found that 141/170 (82.6%) respondents have visited an Internet-based support group to find support or information about their child's CdLS diagnosis. The majority of respondents (71.7%) reported that ISGs have been helpful in finding emotional support, with the most common areas impacted as a result of ISG participation being behavior toward their children and family dynamic. Regarding medical care, most respondents (63.9%) reported that ISGs have been helpful in finding medical information and support, with the most commonly impacted areas of their child's care including day-to-day management, diet, therapy interventions, and healthcare providers. These findings provide a greater understanding of the role of Internet networking in healthcare and may inform future approaches to medical care and psychosocial support for rare, complex genetic diagnoses. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Family health history reporting is sensitive to small changes in wording.

PURPOSE: Family health history is often collected through single-item queries that ask patients whether their family members are affected by certain conditions. The specific wording of these queries may influence what individuals report. METHODS: Parents of Boston Children's Hospital patients were invited to participate in a Web-based survey about the return of individual genomic research results regarding their children. Participants reported whether 11 types of medical conditions affected them or their family. Randomization determined whether participants were specifically instructed to consider their extended family. RESULTS: Family health history was reported by 2,901 participants. Those asked to consider their extended family were more likely to report a positive family history for 8 of 11 medical conditions. The largest differences were observed for cancer (65.1 vs. 45.7%; P < 0.001), cardiovascular conditions (72.5 vs. 56.0%; P < 0.001), and endocrine/hormonal conditions (50.9 vs. 36.7%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Small alterations to the way family health history queries are worded can substantially change patient responses. Clinicians and researchers need to be sensitive about patients' tendencies to omit extended family from health history reporting unless specifically asked to consider them.Genet Med 18 12, 1308-1311.

Test-takers' perspectives on consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk.

Purpose: With few exceptions, research on consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk has focused on tests with limited predictive value and clinical utility. Our study advances the existing literature by exploring the experiences and behaviors of individuals who have taken modern consumer genetic tests for cancer susceptibility that, unlike earlier tests, screen for medically significant variants. Methods: We interviewed 30 individuals who had undergone consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk between 2014 and 2019. We explored participants' pre-test sentiments (7 items), experiences receiving results (5 items), behavioral and health-related changes (6 items), and attitudes and beliefs (3 items). Data were analyzed for thematic content. Results: Most participants reported a personal (n = 6) and/or family history (n = 24) of cancer, which influenced their choice to pursue testing. Before testing, most participants did not consult with a physician (n = 25) or receive genetic counseling (n = 23). Nevertheless, the majority felt that they understood test-related information (n = 20) and their results (n = 20), though a considerable number reported experiencing negative emotions related to their results. Most also shared their results with family members (n = 27). Overall, participants' attitudes towards consumer genetic testing for cancer risk were predominantly positive (n = 23). Conclusion: This study offers new insights into how individuals use and perceive modern consumer genetic tests for hereditary cancer risk, focusing on their perceptions of the risks, benefits, and limitations of these services. Understanding test-takers' perspectives can potentially inform improvements aimed at ensuring that tests meet users' needs and deliver clinically valuable genetic risk assessments.

Expanding Genetic Counselor Roles: A Model for Global Research Development.

PURPOSE: Genetic counselors (GCs) increasingly play key roles in advancing genomic medicine through innovative research. Here, we examine one large cohort of GCs' evolving contributions to the literature, with the goal of facilitating worldwide professional development for GCs through scholarly activities. METHODS: Publications were cataloged by members of the Section of Genetic Counseling (Section), established at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in 2014, including publication year, journal, impact factor, and author position. Data were organized using the "My Bibliography" tool on the National Center for Biotechnology Information website and a Research Electronic Data Capture database created to initially collect manuscripts published through 30 June 2020. A subsequent survey captured publications through 5 February 2024. RESULTS: An amount of 52 of 120 (43%) GCs shared their curriculum vitae/papers. 992 unique publications were identified from 1986 to 2024. Since 2013, no less than 32 papers were published annually by Section members and no less than 10 GCs contributed to publications yearly. Impact factors typically averaged >5.0 per year. Areas of foci diversified considerably since 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we establish that GCs indeed contribute to scholarly work as evidenced by the number of publications alone. The establishment of an academic home may have contributed, given publications increased concurrent to launching the Section, providing a model for organizing GCs at institutions nationally and internationally. Highlighting such achievements will foster the expansion of GC roles in the era of precision genomic medicine and therapy. Considering ways to support GCs towards expanding these activities is equally important.

Randomized study of remote telehealth genetic services versus usual care in oncology practices without genetic counselors.

PURPOSE: To examine the benefit of telehealth over current delivery options in oncology practices without genetic counselors. METHODS: Participants meeting cancer genetic testing guidelines were recruited to this multi-center, randomized trial comparing uptake of genetic services with remote services (telephone or videoconference) to usual care in six predominantly community practices without genetic counselors. The primary outcome was the composite uptake of genetic counseling or testing. Secondary outcomes compare telephone versus videoconference services. RESULTS: 147 participants enrolled and 119 were randomized. Eighty percent of participants in the telehealth arm had genetic services as compared to 16% in the usual care arm (OR 30.52, p < 0.001). Five genetic mutation carriers (6.7%) were identified in the telehealth arm, compared to none in the usual care arm. In secondary analyses, factors associated with uptake were lower anxiety (6.77 vs. 8.07, p = 0.04) and lower depression (3.38 vs. 5.06, p = 0.04) among those who had genetic services. There were no significant differences in change in cognitive or affective outcomes immediately post-counseling and at 6 and 12 months between telephone and videoconference arms. CONCLUSION: Telehealth increases uptake of genetic counseling and testing at oncology practices without genetic counselors and could significantly improve identification of genetic carriers and cancer prevention outcomes.

Preferences for the Return of Individual Results From Research on Pediatric Biobank Samples.

Discussions about disclosing individual genetic research results include calls to consider participants' preferences. In this study, parents of Boston Children's Hospital patients set preferences for disclosure based on disease preventability and severity, and could exclude mental health, developmental, childhood degenerative, and adult-onset disorders. Participants reviewed hypothetical reports and reset preferences, if desired. Among 661 participants who initially wanted all results (64%), 1% reset preferences. Among 336 participants who initially excluded at least one category (36%), 38% reset preferences. Participants who reset preferences added 0.9 categories, on average; and their mean satisfaction on 0 to 10 scales increased from 4.7 to 7.2 ( p < .001). Only 2% reduced the number of categories they wanted disclosed. Findings demonstrate the benefits of providing examples of preference options and the tendency of participants to want results disclosed. Findings also suggest that preference-setting models that do not provide specific examples of results could underestimate participants' desires for information.

Expectation versus Reality: The Impact of Utility on Emotional Outcomes after Returning Individualized Genetic Research Results in Pediatric Rare Disease Research, a Qualitative Interview Study.

PURPOSE: Much information on parental perspectives on the return of individual research results (IRR) in pediatric genomic research is based on hypothetical rather than actual IRR. Our aim was to understand how the expected utility to parents who received IRR on their child from a genetic research study compared to the actual utility of the IRR received. METHODS: We conducted individual telephone interviews with parents who received IRR on their child through participation in the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research Gene Discovery Core (GDC) at Boston Children's Hospital (BCH). RESULTS: Five themes emerged around the utility that parents expected and actually received from IRR: predictability, management, family planning, finding answers, and helping science and/or families. Parents expressing negative or mixed emotions after IRR return were those who did not receive the utility they expected from the IRR. Conversely, parents who expressed positive emotions were those who received as much or greater utility than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between expected and actual utility of IRR affect the experiences of parents and families enrolled in genetic research studies. An informed consent process that fosters realistic expectations between researchers and participants may help to minimize any negative impact on parents and families.