ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Consumer genomic testing (CGT), including direct-to-consumer and consumer-initiated testing, is increasingly widespread yet has limited regulatory oversight. To assess the current state, we surveyed genetics healthcare providers' experiences with CGT. METHODS: A retrospective survey about experiences counseling on CGT results was completed by 139 respondents recruited from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, Clinical Cancer Genomics Community of Practice, and genetics professional societies. RESULTS: Among respondents, 41% disagreed with the statement that potential benefits of CGT outweigh harms, 21% agreed, and 38% were undecided. A total of 94% encountered ≥1 challenge counseling CGT patients, including adverse psychosocial events (76%), incorrect variant interpretation (68%), and unconfirmed results (69%); unconfirmed results were more common among oncology providers (p = 0.03). Providers reporting higher total challenge scores (p = 0.004) or more psychosocial or interpretation challenges (p ≤ 0.01) were more likely to indicate CGT harms outweigh benefits. Those with higher CGT clinical volume were more likely to indicate benefits outweigh harms (p = 0.003). Additional CGT challenges included patient understanding and communication of results, false negatives, incorrect testing/care, and financial costs; seven respondents (6%) documented positive outcomes. CONCLUSION: Providers counseling CGT patients encounter psychosocial and medical challenges. Collaborations between regulators, CGT laboratories, providers, and consumers may help mitigate risks.
Subject(s)
Genetic Counseling , Genetic Testing , Humans , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Genetic Counseling/standards , Genetic Testing/standards , Genetic Testing/methods , Health Personnel/psychology , Female , Direct-To-Consumer Screening and Testing/psychology , Male , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adult , Middle AgedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Most relatives of women with ovarian cancer are unaware of their increased risk for cancer and their eligibility for genetic counseling. State cancer registries offer a platform to communicate about inherited risk to this population. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm randomized trial to test a theory-based communication intervention-Your Family Connects (YFC)-compared to the standard Georgia Cancer Registry (GCR) contact. A total of 1,938 eligible ovarian cancer survivors were randomly assigned to either the YFC arm (n = 969) or the Standard Care arm (n = 969). We assessed the number of ovarian cancer survivors and their close relatives who logged on to the study website by arm. RESULTS: Survivor reach was significantly higher in the Standard Care arm than YFC (20.8% vs. 15.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). However, reach to relatives was limited to listed relatives in the YFC arm (n = 20, 13.2%), with little participation from those in the Standard Care arm (n = 1, 0.4%). Pooling across arms, minority race, longer time since diagnosis, and older age were all significantly associated with a decreased likelihood that the survivor accessed the website. CONCLUSIONS: The YFC intervention showed lower effectiveness for engaging survivors but was more effective than Standard Care in engaging at-risk relatives. Other factors (e.g., time since diagnosis) associated with lower reach must be considered in refining future outreach approaches. IMPACT: Partnering with a state cancer registry to foster family communication about inherited cancer risk is feasible but the possibility for broad population reach warrants further testing.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Genetic Counseling , Ovarian Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Ovarian Neoplasms/genetics , Ovarian Neoplasms/psychology , Cancer Survivors/psychology , Cancer Survivors/statistics & numerical data , Genetic Counseling/methods , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Middle Aged , Family/psychology , Adult , Aged , Registries , Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study aims to shed light on the rather neglected area of research of psychological distress in women facing genetic counselling in Turkey, where few institutions providing such counselling exist. METHODS: 105 breast cancer patients presenting for genetic testing completed a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire as well as validated structured questionnaires including the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S/T) and the Health Motivation Sub-dimension of Champion's Health Belief Model Scale. RESULTS: 69.5% of the participants had lost a family member from cancer; 80% said the term "cancer" elicited negative thoughts (e.g., death, fear, and incurable disease). 62.9% and 37.1% attributed cancer to stress or sorrow, and genetic susceptibility, respectively. There was a negative association between health motivation and BDI scores (r:-0.433, p < 0.001). Married individuals had higher BDI and STAI-S scores (p = 0.001, p = 0.01 respectively), as well as lower STAI-T scores (p = 0.006). BDI, STAI-S and STAI-T scores were higher in those refusing genetic testing (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.003 respectively) and those with metastases (p = 0.03, p = 0.01, p = 0.03 respectively). Furthermore, individuals with low health motivation were more likely to exhibit high BDI scores (p < 0.001) and low STAI-T scores (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Common perceptions and beliefs about cancer and genetic testing during genetic counselling were found to have a negative impact on distress in high-risk women with breast cancer. The negative relationship between psychological distress and health motivation may reduce patients' compliance with genetic counselling recommendations. A comprehensive psychological evaluation should be considered as an important part of genetic counselling.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Genetic Counseling , Psychological Distress , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Turkey , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Genetic Counseling/methods , Middle Aged , Adult , Surveys and Questionnaires , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Genetic Predisposition to Disease/psychology , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Aged , Motivation , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Genetic Testing , Cross-Sectional StudiesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Given the significance of healthcare decisions in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and their impact on patients' lives, this study aims to map the existing literature on decision regret in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria focused on decision regret in the female population with BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations, with no restrictions on the methodologies of the included studies, but only in the English language. The selection process led to the inclusion of 13 studies. RESULTS: The analysis revealed a significant trend toward decision regret among patients facing complex medical choices. The quality of healthcare communication, decision support, and genetic counselling emerged as key factors influencing patients' perceptions and experiences, with direct implications for their quality of life and psychological well-being. The results suggest that these decisions considerably impact patients, both in terms of clinical outcomes and emotional experiences. DISCUSSION: The investigation highlights the vital importance of a personalized care approach, emphasizing the critical role of managing patients' emotional and psychological complexity. Managing decision regret requires acute attention to individual needs and effective communication to mitigate emotional impact and improve patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Insights from a nursing perspective in the analysis of results indicate the need for informed, empathetic, and integrated care that considers the emotional complexity of women with BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations in their lives and health choices.
Subject(s)
BRCA1 Protein , BRCA2 Protein , Breast Neoplasms , Decision Making , Emotions , Mutation , Quality of Life , Humans , Female , BRCA1 Protein/genetics , BRCA2 Protein/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Genetic Counseling/methods , Genes, BRCA1 , Communication , Decision Support Techniques , Genes, BRCA2ABSTRACT
Generation and subsequently accessibility of secondary findings (SF) in diagnostic practice is a subject of debate around the world and particularly in Europe. The French FIND study has been set up to assess patient/parent expectations regarding SF from exome sequencing (ES) and to collect their real-life experience until 1 year after the delivery of results. 340 patients who had ES for undiagnosed developmental disorders were included in this multicenter mixed study (quantitative N = 340; qualitative N = 26). Three groups of actionable SF were rendered: predisposition to late-onset actionable diseases; genetic counseling; pharmacogenomics. Participants expressed strong interest in obtaining SF and a high satisfaction level when a SF is reported. The medical actionability of the SF reinforced parents' sense of taking action for their child and was seen as an opportunity. While we observed no serious psychological concerns, we showed that these results could have psychological consequences, in particular for late-onset actionable diseases SF, within families already dealing with rare diseases. This study shows that participants remain in favor of accessing SF despite the potential psychological, care, and lifestyle impacts, which are difficult to anticipate. The establishment of a management protocol, including the support of a multidisciplinary team, would be necessary if national policy allows the reporting of these data.
Subject(s)
Genetic Counseling , Humans , Female , Male , Adult , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Exome Sequencing , France , Parents/psychology , Child , Genetic Testing , Incidental Findings , Adolescent , Developmental Disabilities/genetics , Developmental Disabilities/psychology , Developmental Disabilities/diagnosis , Child, PreschoolABSTRACT
RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the main arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour or against their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive disorders at fertility clinics in the Netherlands? DESIGN: Semi-structured interview study with 20 reproductive healthcare providers between May 2020 and January 2021. Participants included 11 gynaecologists, seven fertility doctors, one nurse practitioner and one clinical embryologist, recruited from academic medical centres (nâ¯=â¯13), peripheral facilities associated with academic centres (nâ¯=â¯4), and independent fertility treatment centres (nâ¯=â¯3) in the Netherlands. An interview guide was developed, and thematic content analysis was performed using ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS: Arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour of their potential involvement in offering ECS included: (i) opportunities offered by the setting; (ii) motivation to assist in reproduction and prevent suffering; and (iii) to counter unwanted commercialization offers. Arguments against involvement included: (i) lack of knowledge and familiarity with offering ECS; (ii) insufficient staff and resources, and potential high costs for clinics and/or couples; (iii) the emotional impact it may have on couples; (iv) perceived complexity of counselling and expected elongation of waiting lists; and (v) expected low impact on reducing the burden of diseases. Participants felt that more evidence and research on the costs-benefits, implications and demand are needed prior to their involvement. CONCLUSION: While agreeing that the field of medically assisted reproduction provides a unique opportunity to offer ECS, reproductive healthcare workers feel a lack of capability and limited motivation to offer ECS to all or a selection of couples at their fertility clinics.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Fertility Clinics , Genetic Carrier Screening , Qualitative Research , Humans , Female , Genetic Carrier Screening/methods , Male , Health Personnel/psychology , Netherlands , Adult , Genetic Counseling/psychologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Persons with Parkinson's disease (PD) who have received genetic test results are faced with the decision of whether, and how, to share that information with family. Studies in other specialties have shown high rates of disclosure motivated by a sense of responsibility. Rates of, and attitudes surrounding, disclosure have yet to be reported in this population. OBJECTIVES: To explore the disclosure practices and motivations of patients with PD regarding genetic test results, allowing insight to guide genetic counseling and navigation of test result discussions. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to adults with PD and previous genetic test results. Survey questions assessed demographics, genetic testing results and delivery, sharing behaviors, perceptions of PD, and motivations and barriers to family disclosure. RESULTS: Among respondents, 88.9% shared results with at least one family member, most often a child (73.5%) or sibling (65.4%). Seventy-four percent reported sharing results with someone outside of their family, most frequently a friend (88.4%). The most common motivation for disclosure was the perception that family members would want to know. Barriers to disclosure were lack of close relationships, understanding results, and perceived utility. CONCLUSIONS: Disclosure rates in this PD population were consistent with those in previously reported populations. Motivations were anchored in perceptions of utility and family desire for information, suggesting a need to adjust patient education to improve retention and to explore family dynamics and perceptions of results.
Subject(s)
Disclosure , Family , Genetic Testing , Parkinson Disease , Humans , Parkinson Disease/genetics , Parkinson Disease/psychology , Parkinson Disease/diagnosis , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Aged , Family/psychology , Adult , Surveys and Questionnaires , Motivation , Genetic Counseling/psychologyABSTRACT
Studies have consistently shown that psychiatric genetic counseling (pGC) helps people with psychiatric conditions by increasing empowerment and self-efficacy, and addressing emotions like guilt. Yet, it is not routinely provided. Genetic counselors and trainees express low confidence in their ability to provide meaningful pGC, especially in the absence of adequate training. Therefore, to address this gap a "Psychiatric Genetic Counseling for Genetic Counselors" (PG4GC) workshop was developed and delivered to 13 groups of participants (primarily qualified genetic counselors and trainees) between 2015 and 2023 (10 workshops were delivered in-person, and three virtually). Participants completed quantitative questionnaires both before and after completing the workshop to assess their comfort, knowledge, behavior, and feeling of being equipped to provide pGC. In total, 232 individuals completed the pre-workshop questionnaire and 154 completed the post-workshop questionnaire. Participants felt more comfortable, knowledgeable, and equipped to provide pGC, and reported being more likely to address psychiatric concerns after the workshop, regardless of whether they were trainees or practicing professionals and whether they completed the workshop in-person or virtually. This study suggests that the PG4GC workshop is an effective educational tool in pGC training that may aid in broader implementation of the service.
Subject(s)
Counselors , Genetic Counseling , Humans , Genetic Counseling/methods , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Counselors/education , Counselors/psychology , Female , Male , Adult , Mental Disorders/genetics , Education/methods , Psychiatry/educationABSTRACT
Increasing use of diagnostic genomic sequencing is pushing health services to confront the issue of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). To date, OGS has been offered concomitant with diagnostic testing. In contrast, we piloted a service offering OGS after return of diagnostic testing results. Evaluation was designed to provide insights for future models of service and included patient surveys at three time points, semi-structured interviews with genetic counsellors (GCs) and a focus group with medical scientists. Uptake was relatively low: 83 of 200 patients approached (42%) attended the OGS service, with 81 accepting OGS. Whilst many who declined to attend the service cited practical barriers, others gave reasons that indicated this was a considered decision. Despite specific genetic counselling, one third of patients did not understand the scope of re-analysis. Yet after post-test counselling, all respondents with novel pathogenic additional findings (AF) understood the implications and reported relevant follow-up. Recall was high: five months after last contact, 75% recalled being offered OGS without prompting. GC interviews and patient survey responses provide insights into complexities that influence patient support needs, including diagnostic status and AF result type. There was no consensus among patients or professionals about when to offer OGS. There was a clear preference for multiple, flexible methods of information provision; achieving this whilst balancing patient support needs and resource requirements is a challenge requiring further investigation. Decisions about whether, when and how to offer OGS are complex; our study shows the two-step approach warrants further exploration.
Subject(s)
Genetic Counseling , Genetic Testing , Humans , Genetic Testing/methods , Female , Male , Adult , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Middle Aged , AgedABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The etiology of psychiatric disorders is multifactorial including genomic and environmental risk factors. Psychiatric genetic counseling is an emerging field that may promote processes of adaptation to, and the management of, psychiatric disorders. Many countries lack dedicated services leading to a gap in care. This scoping review will inform the development of psychiatric genetics-based educational resources. OBJECTIVES: To explore individuals with a psychiatric disorder and their relatives' attitudes and beliefs toward psychiatric genetics, genetic counseling, and genetics-based education. To evaluate how best to convey education to consumers. METHOD: Database literature searches occurred on May 2nd, 2023, using PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO. Reviews, letters to the editor, case reports, and publications before 2003 were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-four papers met the inclusion criteria. Results suggest individuals with a psychiatric disorder and their relatives tended to overestimate risk, and express concern about reproductive decision- making. Genetic counseling and educational resources were perceived to be useful and empowering. CONCLUSION: Affected individuals and relatives are interested in gaining greater insight into their own and/or their relative's psychiatric disorder, management strategies, and understanding familial risks. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The evidence from this review may inform the development of genetics-based educational resources or guide future research.
Subject(s)
Genetic Counseling , Mental Disorders , Humans , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Mental Disorders/genetics , Attitude , Behavior TherapyABSTRACT
Direct contact may be an option for supporting disclosure in families with hereditary cancer risk. In this qualitative interview study, we explored how healthy at-risk relatives experience receiving a letter with information about hereditary cancer directly from healthcare rather than via a relative. The study is part of an ongoing multicentre randomised clinical trial in Sweden that evaluates the effectiveness of direct letters from cancer genetics clinics to at-risk relatives. After conducting semi-structured interviews with 14 relatives who had received a letter and contacted the clinic, we analysed the data using thematic analysis. The relatives had different levels of prior knowledge about the hereditary cancer assessment. Many had been notified by family that a letter was coming but some had not. Overall, these participants believed healthcare-mediated disclosure could complement family-mediated disclosure. They expressed that the letter and the message raised concerns and a need for counselling, and they wanted healthcare to be accessible and informed when making contact. The participants found the message easier to cope with when they had been notified by a family member beforehand, with a general attitude that notifying relatives was the appropriate step to take. They thought healthcare should help patients with the disclosure process but also guard the right of at-risk relatives to be informed. The findings support a direct approach from healthcare as a possible complement to an established model of family-mediated risk disclosure, but implementation must be made within existing frameworks of good practice for genetic counselling.
Subject(s)
Genetic Counseling , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Humans , Female , Male , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Middle Aged , Adult , Sweden , Neoplasms/genetics , Family/psychology , Aged , Genetic Testing/methodsABSTRACT
This study explored the experiences and needs of adolescents, ranging from 12 to 18 years old, who have recently been diagnosed with cancer and participated in a nationwide germline genetic sequencing study within the context of pediatric oncology. The 21 adolescents in this qualitative interview study viewed genetic sequencing as an integral part of their cancer journey. They often characterized germline sequencing as "good-to-know" without specifying immediate utility. While the adolescents comprehended the significance of germline genetic sequencing, they were less focused on its potential long-term implications. Adolescents expressed a strong desire to be actively engaged in decisions related to genetics. They advocated for a participatory role in genetic decision-making from a young age onwards. They recommended that re-consent should be sought before re-analysis of their genetic data is performed and believe that patients should have the opportunity to provide (re-)consent once they reach adulthood. Moreover, the adolescents emphasized the importance of developing counseling materials that are not only concise but also visually attractive. In conclusion, this study underscores the positive perception that adolescents diagnosed with cancer hold regarding germline genetic sequencing. They articulate a strong interest in being actively involved in genetic decision-making. To address these articulated needs and preferences, we recommend the development of visually engaging counseling materials. These materials should effectively convey both the immediate and long-term implications of genetic sequencing, enabling adolescents with cancer to make informed decisions about genetic sequencing.
Subject(s)
Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Neoplasms , Humans , Adolescent , Female , Male , Child , Neoplasms/genetics , Neoplasms/psychology , Germ-Line Mutation , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Genetic Testing/methods , Qualitative Research , Decision MakingABSTRACT
Genetic counseling students with minoritized identities have reported experiencing microaggressions throughout graduate training, including from fieldwork supervisors. However, the impacts of these fieldwork experiences have not been thoroughly investigated. As supervision is known to be integral to genetic counseling students' skill development and success, the purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the impact of microaggressions on student training, with a specific focus on the supervisory working alliance. To achieve this goal, we conducted 11 interviews with recent genetic counseling graduates (2019-2021) who reported experiencing at least one microaggression from a fieldwork supervisor during graduate school training. Purposive sampling was used to prioritize interviewees who identified as underrepresented in the field due to race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and/or disability status. All interviewees were initially recruited as part of a larger mixed-methods study investigating the frequency and types of microaggressions genetic counseling students experience from fieldwork supervisors. Interview questions explored the time period before a microaggression event, during the event, and after. Qualitative thematic analysis resulted in four themes, three of which are presented in this paper: (1) Impact of microaggressions, (2) Barriers to reporting microaggressions, and (3) Experience reporting microaggressions. Microaggressions from supervisors were shown to impair the psychological well-being of participants and hinder learning opportunities. These experiences led participants to question their choice of profession and avoid time in clinic, ultimately constraining the development of strong supervisory working alliances. Some participants did not report microaggressions due to fear of negative repercussions, and those who did described defensive responses which harmed students' relationships with program leadership. This study reveals opportunities for supervisors to improve student training conditions by centering students' feelings and experiences, increasing open and honest communication, and extending psychosocial tools to supervision. Additionally, graduate programs are encouraged to establish structured reporting protocols for students and evaluate current shortcomings in equity and inclusion initiatives.
Subject(s)
Genetic Counseling , Microaggression , Humans , Male , Female , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Gender Identity , Students/psychology , Qualitative ResearchABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Genetic testing uptake for cancer susceptibility in family members of patients with cancer is suboptimal. Among relatives of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment, and TEsting (GENERATE) study evaluated 2 online genetic education/testing delivery models and their impact on patient-reported psychological outcomes. METHODS: Eligible participants had ≥1 first-degree relative with PDAC, or ≥1 first-/second-degree relative with PDAC with a known pathogenic germline variant in 1 of 13 PDAC predisposition genes. Participants were randomized by family, between May 8, 2019, and June 1, 2021. Arm 1 participants underwent a remote interactive telemedicine session and online genetic education. Arm 2 participants were offered online genetic education only. All participants were offered germline testing. The primary outcome was genetic testing uptake, compared by permutation tests and mixed-effects logistic regression models. We hypothesized that Arm 1 participants would have a higher genetic testing uptake than Arm 2. Validated surveys were administered to assess patient-reported anxiety, depression, and cancer worry at baseline and 3 months postintervention. RESULTS: A total of 424 families were randomized, including 601 participants (n = 296 Arm 1; n = 305 Arm 2), 90% of whom completed genetic testing (Arm 1 [87%]; Arm 2 [93%], P = .014). Arm 1 participants were significantly less likely to complete genetic testing compared with Arm 2 participants (adjusted ratio [Arm1/Arm2] 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.98). Among participants who completed patient-reported psychological outcomes questionnaires (Arm 1 [n = 194]; Arm 2 [n = 206]), the intervention did not affect mean anxiety, depression, or cancer worry scores. CONCLUSIONS: Remote genetic education and testing can be a successful and complementary option for delivering genetics care. (Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT03762590).
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genetic Testing , Pancreatic Neoplasms , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Telemedicine , Humans , Pancreatic Neoplasms/genetics , Pancreatic Neoplasms/psychology , Pancreatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/genetics , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/psychology , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/therapy , Genetic Predisposition to Disease/psychology , Risk Assessment , Aged , Anxiety/psychology , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/etiology , Adult , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/genetics , Depression/psychology , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Germ-Line Mutation , Family/psychologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The field of genetics is rapidly expanding and people are increasingly utilizing genetic testing and counseling services. However, the current literature on genetic health topics and Filipinos remains limited, as many minority populations are not adequately studied. This study describes Filipino Americans' attitudes and knowledge of genetic disease, genetic testing, and genetic counseling. To address these knowledge gaps and reduce the burden of health disparities, the informational needs of Filipino Americans regarding genetic disease and genetic services must be understood in order to better tailor these services and outreach methods. METHODS: Fifteen semi-structured, qualitative interviews were held with individuals who self-identified as Filipino American between November 2022 and January 2023. Interviews were transcribed and coded using an iterative process. RESULTS: Most participants were familiar with genetic disease and believed that factors such as biology, as well as cultural factors such as upbringing and food, contributed to its development. The majority of participants had previously heard of genetic testing; however, most participants either did not know much or were only familiar with ancestry direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT). Most participants had not heard of genetic counseling and those that had heard of genetic counseling before did not understand its purpose. Overall, most participants had a positive attitude toward genetic testing and counseling. Participants identified the benefits of these services including genetic disease prevention, management, and treatment. Participants stressed the importance of educating the Filipino community and shared their ideas for how to implement outreach efforts. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study found that Filipino Americans generally had a positive outlook on genetic testing and genetic counseling. We propose participant-generated ideas for outreach and education that may help inform future public health efforts that aim to educate this population about genetic disease, testing and counseling.
Subject(s)
Asian , Genetic Counseling , Genetic Testing , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Female , Male , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Adult , Middle Aged , Asian/psychology , Asian/genetics , Philippines/ethnology , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/psychology , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/ethnology , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/genetics , Genetic Diseases, Inborn/diagnosis , Aged , Young Adult , Qualitative ResearchABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Genetic counseling (GC) is standard of care in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). A rigorous assessment of the data reported from published studies is crucial to ensure the evidence-based implementation of GC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 patient-reported and health-services-related outcomes associated with pre- and post-test GC in GCRA in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 5393 screened articles met inclusion criteria. No articles reporting post-test GC outcomes met inclusion criteria. For patient-reported outcomes, pre-test GC significantly decreased worry, increased knowledge, and decreased perceived risk but did not significantly affect patient anxiety, depression, decisional conflict, satisfaction, or intent to pursue genetic testing. For health-services outcomes, pre-test GC increased correct genetic test ordering, reduced inappropriate services, increased spousal support for genetic testing, and expedited care delivery but did not consistently improve cancer prevention behaviors nor lead to accurate risk assessment. The GRADE certainty in the evidence was very low or low. No included studies elucidated GC effect on mortality, cascade testing, cost-effectiveness, care coordination, shared decision making, or patient time burden. CONCLUSION: The true impact of GC on relevant outcomes is not known low quality or absent evidence. Although a meta-analysis found that pre-test GC had beneficial effects on knowledge, worry, and risk perception, the certainty of this evidence was low according to GRADE methodology. Further studies are needed to support the evidence-based application of GC in GCRA.
Subject(s)
Genetic Counseling , Neoplasms , Humans , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/genetics , Genetic TestingABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Non-normative uncertainty (uncertainty about empirical facts) and normative uncertainty (uncertainty about moral values or beliefs) regarding unsolicited findings (UFs) might play an important role in clinical genetics. Identifying normative uncertainty is of special interest since it might guide towards novel directions for counseling practice. This study aims to gain insight into the role of non-normative and normative uncertainty regarding UFs, as expressed by counselees and counselors. METHODS: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with counselees (n = 20) and counselors (n = 20) who had been confronted with UFs. Following a deductive approach, we used Han et al.'s existing theoretical framework of uncertainty, in which we additionally incorporated normative uncertainty. RESULTS: Major issues of non-normative uncertainty were practical and personal for counselees, whilst counselors' uncertainty pertained mainly to scientific issues. Normative uncertainty was a major theme throughout the interviews. We encountered the moral conflicts of autonomy vs. beneficence and non-maleficence and of autonomy vs. truthfulness. CONCLUSION: Non-normative uncertainty regarding UFs highlights the need to gain more insight in their penetrance and clinical utility. This study suggests moral conflicts are a major source of feelings of uncertainty in clinical genetics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Exploring counselees' non-normative uncertainties and normative conflicts seems a prerequisite to optimize genetic counseling.
Subject(s)
Counselors , Genetic Testing , Humans , Uncertainty , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Counselors/psychology , EmotionsABSTRACT
Increasingly, pregnant people in the United States are choosing to give at birth at home, and certified professional midwives (CPMs) often attend these births. Care by midwives, including home birth midwives, has the potential to decrease unnecessary medical interventions and their associated health care costs, as well as to improve maternal satisfaction with care. However, lack of integration into the health care system affects the ability of CPMs to access standard medications and testing for their clients, including prenatal screening. Genetics and genomics are now a routine part of prenatal screening, and genetic testing can contribute to identifying candidates for planned home birth. However, research on genetics and midwifery care has not, to date, included the subset of midwives who attend the majority of planned home births, CPMs. The purpose of this study was to examine CPMs' access to, and perspectives on, one aspect of prenatal care, genetic counselors and genetic counseling services. Using semi-structured interviews and a modified grounded theory approach to narrative analysis, we identified three key themes: (1) systems-level issues with accessing information about genetic counseling and genetic testing; (2) practice-level patterns in information delivery and self-awareness about knowledge limitations; and (3) client-level concerns about the value of genetic testing relative to difficulties with access and stress caused by the information. The results of this study can be used to develop decision aids that include information about genetic testing and genetic counseling access for pregnant people intending home births in the United States.
Subject(s)
Genetic Counseling , Genetic Testing , Grounded Theory , Midwifery , Humans , Female , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Pregnancy , Vermont , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , Middle Aged , Counselors/psychology , Interviews as Topic , Nurse Midwives/psychology , Prenatal Care , Home Childbirth/psychology , Qualitative ResearchABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Two approaches exist in clinical genetics - an approach that advocates non-directive genetic counseling and an approach of assisted patient decision-making. Genetic counseling for patients in the era of technological progress, a significant and rapid increase in existing knowledge and the availability of genetic information presents patients with difficult dilemmas under emotional burden with insufficient tools to support decision-making. This article presents a decision-making facilitation model for geneticists, using an example case of genetic counseling for a pathogenic chromosomal microarray result from fetal DNA after amniocentesis, with an unknown fetal clinical significance. The model includes preparation, coordination of expectations, decision aids and preparation for the day after the decision. The facilitation process is designed to support the decision-making process so that the couple can reach a decision that is suitable for them while minimizing regret in the future.
Subject(s)
Amniocentesis , Genetic Counseling , Pregnancy , Female , Humans , Genetic Counseling/psychology , Prenatal Diagnosis/methods , Uncertainty , Decision Making , CounselingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A theory-guided Tailored Counseling and Navigation (TCN) intervention successfully increased cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) uptake among cancer survivors at increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Understanding the pathways by which interventions motivate behavior change is important for identifying the intervention's active components. PURPOSE: We examined whether the TCN intervention exerted effects on CGRA uptake through hypothesized theoretical mediators. METHODS: Cancer survivors at elevated risk for HBOC were recruited from three statewide cancer registries and were randomly assigned to three arms: TCN (n = 212), Targeted Print (TP, n = 216), and Usual Care (UC, n = 213). Theoretical mediators from the Extended Parallel Process Model, Health Action Planning Approach, and Ottawa Decision Support Framework were assessed at baseline and 1-month follow-up; CGRA uptake was assessed at 6 months. Generalized structural equation modeling was used for mediation analysis. RESULTS: The TCN effects were most strongly mediated by behavioral intention alone (ß = 0.49 and 0.31) and by serial mediation through self-efficacy and intention (ß = 0.041 and 0.10) when compared with UC and TP, respectively. In addition, compared with UC, the TCN also increased CGRA through increased perceived susceptibility, knowledge of HBOC, and response efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Risk communication and behavioral change interventions for hereditary cancer should stress a person's increased genetic risk and the potential benefits of genetic counseling and testing, as well as bolster efficacy beliefs by helping remove barriers to CGRA. System-level and policy interventions are needed to further expand access.
It is recommended that cancer survivors at increased risk for heredity seek cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA), which includes cancer genetic counseling and genetic testing. A Tailored Counseling and Navigation (TCN) intervention successfully increased CGRA uptake among women with a history of cancer who enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. Understanding reasons for TCN's effectiveness can guide future interventions that use risk messages and behavior change techniques. We conducted mediation analyses, which enabled identification of the TCN's active components. Eligible breast and ovarian cancer survivors (n = 641) were recruited from three statewide cancer registries and were assigned to three groups: TCN, Targeted Print, and Usual Care. Mediator variables drawn from behavioral and risk communication theories were assessed at baseline and 1-month follow-up; CGRA uptake was assessed at 6 months. The strongest mediator was intention to obtain a CGRA, followed by self-efficacy, perceived risk, knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and perceived CGRA benefits. Risk communication and behavioral change interventions for hereditary cancer should stress a person's increased genetic risk and the potential benefits of genetic counseling and testing, as well as bolster efficacy beliefs by helping remove CGRA barriers. System-level and policy interventions are needed to further expand access.