Randomized control trial comparing genetic counseling service delivery models in an underserved population.

This randomized controlled trial compares outcomes of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling service models in underserved, bilingual patient populations referred for cancer genetic counseling. Between 2022 and 2023, a two-arm (telephone vs. in-person genetic counseling) prospective, randomized controlled study with 201 participants was conducted at two county hospital cancer genetics clinics. Primary outcomes included comparison of pre- and post-genetic counseling genetics knowledge (Multi-dimensional Model of Informed Choice, MMIC), genetic counseling visit satisfaction (Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale, GCSS), and genetic counseling visit completion rates. Secondary outcomes included comparison of genetic testing attitudes and informed choice (MMIC), genetic counseling-specific empowerment (Genomic Outcomes Scale, GOS), and genetic testing completion and cancellation/failure rates, using linear regression models (significance ≤0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between arms in pre/post-genetic counseling MMIC knowledge and attitude, GOS or GCSS scores or genetic counseling completion. While more participants in the telephone versus in-person arm made an informed choice about testing (52.5% v. 39.0%, p = 0.0552), test completion was lower (74% v. 100%, p < 0.05) for this group. Genetic counseling completion rates and MMIC knowledge and attitude, GOS, and GCSS scores suggest telephone genetic counseling is comparable to in-person genetic counseling for underserved populations. Higher informed choice scores and significantly lower testing completion rates for telephone visits require further study.

"I wish that there was more info": characterizing the uncertainty experienced by carriers of pathogenic ATM and/or CHEK2 variants.

Little is known about what uncertainties patients experience after being identified to carry a pathogenic variant in a moderate-risk cancer gene as a result of undergoing multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility. Data regarding cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of risk management strategies for these variants continues to evolve, which has the potential to evoke uncertainty. Acknowledging uncertainty during pre- and post-test discussions is imperative to helping individuals to adapt to their results. A better understanding of this population's experience of uncertainty is needed to facilitate such discussions and is the aim of the current study. Semi-structured interviews (30-60 min in length), informed by Han and colleagues' taxonomy of uncertainty in clinical genomic sequencing, were conducted to assess motivations to pursue genetic testing, areas of perceived uncertainty, and strategies for managing uncertainty among 20 carriers of pathogenic variants in two moderate-risk genes, ATM and CHEK2. We found that participants pursue genetic testing with the expectation that results will clarify cancer risks and approaches to management. Participants experience uncertainties aligning with Han's taxonomy relating to the ambiguity of specific cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of certain risk management strategies. These uncertainties influenced decisions around the uptake of risk management strategies, which were additionally impacted by clinicians' uncertainty towards such strategies. Participants employ a variety of uncertainty management approaches to cope with their anxieties. Clinicians may wish to use these findings to facilitate patient adaptation to the implications of multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility during both pre- and post-test counseling sessions.

U.S. Genetic counselors' perceptions of inpatient genetic counseling: A valuable model for medically complex patients.

Some genetic counselors (GCs) provide care in the inpatient setting. However, there is little literature on inpatient genetic counseling. The purpose of our study was to describe GC's experiences with the provision of genetic counseling services within inpatient care settings. Participants were recruited from respondents to a quantitative survey study on inpatient genetic counseling, which recruited GCs via the National Society of Genetic Counselors forum. GCs seeing at least five inpatients per year were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interview guide explored how and why their inpatient genetic counseling service started, workflow, and the perceived impact of the service. Interviews were transcribed, inductive analysis was used to develop a codebook, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Twenty-one inpatient genetic counselors participated in the study. Many participants worked primarily in outpatient roles with some inpatient duties (61.9%), while the rest worked primarily in inpatient roles (38.1%). Most participants have provided inpatient care for <2 years (66.7%). Many participants were involved in inpatient care across multiple specialties (66.7%), most frequently, pediatrics, neonatology, and neurology. Three themes were identified: (a) The convenience of inpatient genetic counseling leads to increased access to appropriate genetics care for medically complex patients and their inpatient healthcare providers, (b) the inpatient genetic counseling process and workflow is not standard and has multiple moving parts, and (c) genetic counselors are fulfilled by the diverse and unique opportunities of the inpatient care setting despite the emotional intensity of this environment. Participants described their inpatient care as valuable because it increases access to genetics services and adds genetics expertise to multidisciplinary inpatient teams. Overall, participants perceive inpatient genetic counseling as a way to bring genetics care directly to patients at a critical time point in their care, which benefits medically complex patients and their multidisciplinary inpatient team.