Where is the "counseling" in prenatal genetic counseling?

OBJECTIVE: Prenatal genetic testing is routinely offered to all pregnant patients in the United States and is variably offered to certain pregnant populations globally [1]. To achieve value-based, informed decision-making, we argue for a shift away from the predominant "teaching" model of genetic counseling practice that prioritizes information and counselor dominance, toward a "counseling" model of practice that prioritizes the patient's narrative, values and beliefs. DISCUSSION: Since prenatal testing began, genetic counseling has aimed to facilitate informed decision-making. Many patients are not familiar with the conditions which can be screened for prenatally or the quality of life of affected children. This lack of understanding can leave expectant parents unprepared to make informed decisions about prenatal testing. As the number of prenatal genetic tests expands, genetic counselors and all healthcare providers who discuss prenatal testing face a growing amount of information that is not feasible to explain to patients in a routine appointment. Research demonstrates that the common approach to genetic counseling, including in the prenatal setting, is the provision of biomedical information. Yet, genetic counseling outcome studies suggest that attending to the relational aspects of genetic counseling are associated with more positive patient outcomes, including enhanced knowledge, informed decision-making and greater patient satisfaction [2,3]. Through case vignettes, we illustrate the application of a counseling model of practice using Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) practice-based competencies in the domain of "Interpersonal, Psychosocial and Counseling Skills" [4]. Finally, we propose changes across the genetic counseling profession to move clinical practice toward a more relational model of care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A counseling model of genetic counseling practice leads to more positive patient outcomes [2,3]. Genetic counselors and other prenatal healthcare providers can leverage existing counseling and communication skills to support clients in value-based, informed decision-making in prenatal genetic counseling practice.

Evaluation of mailed results versus telephone disclosure of normal cancer genetic test results in a low-risk underserved population.

Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery.

Genetic counseling services delivered in the usual way­during clinic visits­can take up a lot of time for patients and genetic counselors. Alternatives to this practice have been studied among genetic counseling patients to spare genetic counselors' time and expand access and flexibility for patients. Yet, in these studies, the participants have lacked diversity. So, it is not known how these research findings pertain to all populations. In this study, we looked at the use of an alternative care model, a mailed letter, for sharing normal genetic test results with study participants from underserved populations. We tested whether patients viewed the mailed letter as no worse than a telephone conversation with a genetic counselor, which has been shown to be well received by patients. We learned that study participants felt they understood their results, were not distressed to receive the results, and were satisfied with how their results were delivered. Lastly, we found that participants were more satisfied with the amount of information provided about their test results during the telephone conversation compared with the mailed letter. This study provides new information about different ways to deliver test results to individuals receiving genetic services.

The Parent PrU: A measure to assess personal utility of pediatric genomic results.

PURPOSE: We aimed to adapt and validate an existing patient-reported outcome measure, the personal-utility (PrU) scale, for use in the pediatric genomic context. METHODS: We adapted the adult version of the PrU and obtained feedback from 6 parents whose child had undergone sequencing. The resulting measure, the Parent PrU, was administered to parents of children in 4 pediatric cohorts of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium after they received their children's genomic results. We investigated the measure's structural validity and internal consistency. RESULTS: We conducted a principal-axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation on data from 755 participants to determine structural validity. These analyses yielded a 3-factor solution, accounting for 76% of the variance in the 16 items. We used Cronbach's α to assess the internal consistency of each factor: (1) child benefits (α = .95), (2) affective parent benefits (α = .90), and (3) parent control (α = .94). CONCLUSION: Our evidence suggests that the Parent PrU scale has potential as a measure for assessing parent-reported personal utility of their children's genomic results. Additional research is needed to further validate the Parent PrU scale, including by comparing its findings with utility assessments reported by clinicians and children themselves.

Motivations to learn genomic information are not exceptional: Lessons from behavioral science.

Whether to undergo genome sequencing in a clinical or research context is generally a voluntary choice. Individuals are often motivated to learn genomic information even when clinical utility-the possibility that the test could inform medical recommendations or health outcomes-is low or absent. Motivations to seek one's genomic information can be cognitive, affective, social, or mixed (e.g., cognitive and affective) in nature. These motivations are based on the perceived value of the information, specifically, its clinical utility and personal utility. We suggest that motivations to learn genomic information are no different from motivations to learn other types of personal information, including one's health status and disease risk. Here, we review behavioral science relevant to motivations that may drive engagement with genome sequencing, both in the presence of varying degrees of clinical utility and in the absence of clinical utility. Specifically, we elucidate 10 motivations that are expected to underlie decisions to undergo genome sequencing. Recognizing these motivations to learn genomic information will guide future research and ultimately help clinicians to facilitate informed decision making among individuals as genome sequencing becomes increasingly available.

Misunderstood terms and concepts identified through user testing of educational materials for fragile X premutation: "Not weak or fragile?"

Complicated genetic mechanisms and unpredictable health risks associated with the FMR1 premutation can result in challenges for patient education when the diagnosis is made in a newborn. From October 15, 2018, to December 10, 2021, North Carolina parents could obtain FMR1 premutation results about their newborns through a voluntary expanded newborn screening research study. The study provided confirmatory testing, parental testing, and genetic counseling. We developed web-based educational materials to augment information about fragile X premutation conveyed by a genetic counselor. Many genetics education materials are developed for the lay population. However, relatively little research is published on how well individuals understand these materials. We conducted three rounds of iterative user testing interviews to help refine web-based educational materials that support understanding and self-paced learning. The participants included 25 parents with a 2-year college degree or less and without a child identified with fragile X syndrome, premutation, or gray-zone allele. Content analysis of interview transcripts resulted in iterative changes and ultimately saturation of findings. Across all rounds of interviews, there were two terms that were commonly misunderstood (fragile and carrier) and two terms that elicited initial misconceptions that were overcome by participants. Many also had difficulty understanding the relationship between fragile X premutation and fragile X syndrome as well as appreciating the implications of having a "fragile X gene." Website layout, formatting, and graphics also influenced comprehension. Despite iterative changes to the content, certain issues with understandability persisted. The findings support the need for user testing to identify misconceptions that may interfere with understanding and using genetic information. Here, we describe a process used to develop and refine evidence-based, understandable parental resources on fragile X premutation. Additionally, we provide recommendations to address ongoing educational challenges and discuss the potential impact of bias on the part of expert content developers.

Uncertainties experienced by parents of children diagnosed with severe combined immunodeficiency through newborn screening.

Individuals with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), a group of rare, genetic conditions, are at risk for life-threatening illnesses unless diagnosed and treated early. Even after early identification through newborn screening, parents of children with SCID embark on a complex journey marked by a variety of informational and emotional support needs. This paper explored the types of uncertainties experienced by parents of a child with SCID diagnosed through newborn screening. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 parents to discuss the types of uncertainty experienced, including scientific, practical, personal, and existential. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and coded. Using deductive and inductive content analysis, we describe the type of uncertainty experienced across each stage of the SCID journey. We found that uncertainties in the SCID journey were chronic and multifaceted. Some uncertainties were more prominent at certain points of the journey whereas others spanned multiple stages. Parents expressed a variety of negative emotional reactions to uncertainty, from anxiety, worry, and fear, to doubt, guilt, or grief, and even anger, frustration, and depression. The results speak to the need for healthcare providers to prepare parents for the SCID journey by providing resources to help manage and cope with uncertainty.

Use of a web-based portal to return normal individual research results in Early Check: Exploring user behaviors and attitudes.

Early Check is a voluntary, large-scale expanded newborn screening study in North Carolina that uses a self-directed web-based portal for return of normal individual research results (IRR). Little is known about participant perspectives in using web-based portals to receive IRR. This study explored user attitudes and behaviors within the Early Check portal using three methods: (1) a feedback survey available to the consenting parent of participating infants (typically mothers), (2) semi-structured interviews conducted with a subset of parents, and (3) Google Analytics. During an approximate 3-year period, 17 936 newborns received normal IRR and there were 27 812 visits to the portal. Most surveyed parents reported viewing their baby's results (86%, 1410/1639). Parents largely found the portal easy to use to get results, and helpful in understanding the results. However, 10% of parents said it was difficult to find enough information to understand their baby's results. In Early Check, providing normal IRR via the portal made a large-scale study practical, and was highly rated by most users. Return of normal IRR may be particularly amenable to web-based portals, as the consequences to participants from not viewing results are modest, and the interpretation of a normal result is relatively straightforward.

The PrU: Development and validation of a measure to assess personal utility of genomic results.

PURPOSE: People report experiencing value from learning genomic results even in the absence of clinically actionable information. Such personal utility has emerged as a key concept in genomic medicine. The lack of a validated patient-reported outcome measure of personal utility has impeded the ability to assess this concept among those receiving genomic results and evaluate the patient-perceived value of genomics. We aimed to construct and psychometrically evaluate a scale to measure personal utility of genomic results-the Personal Utility (PrU) scale. METHODS: We used an evidence-based, operational definition of personal utility, with data from a systematic literature review and Delphi survey to build a novel scale. After piloting with 24 adults, the PrU was administered to healthy adults in a Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium study after receiving results. We investigated the responses using exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis (N = 841 participants) resulted in a 3-factor solution, accounting for 74% of the variance in items: (1) self-knowledge (α = 0.92), (2) reproductive planning (α = 0.89), and (3) practical benefits (α = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of the 3-factor PrU to assess personal utility of genomic results. Validation of the PrU in other samples will be important for more wide-spread application.

Future-oriented Emotions and Decisions to Receive Genomic Testing Results Among U.S. Adults of African Ancestry.

BACKGROUND: Future-oriented emotions are associated with consequential health decision-making, including genomic testing decisions. However, little is known about the relative role of various future-oriented emotions in such decisions. Moreover, most research on predictors of decision making regarding genomic testing is conducted with white participants. PURPOSE: This study examined the role of future-oriented emotions in decisions to receive genomic testing results in U.S. individuals of African descent. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional survey data from a genomic sequencing cohort (N = 408). All participants identified as African, African-American, or Afro-Caribbean (Mage = 56.3, 74.7% female). Participants completed measures assessing anticipatory affect (worry about genetic testing results), anticipated distress (feeling devastated if genetic testing showed an increased risk for fatal disease), and anticipated regret (regretting a decision not to learn results). Outcomes were intentions for learning actionable, nonactionable, and carrier results. RESULTS: Anticipated regret was robustly positively associated with intentions to receive actionable (b = 0.28, p < .001), nonactionable (b = 0.39, p < .001), and carrier (b = 0.30, p < .001) results. Anticipated distress was negatively associated with intentions to receive nonactionable results only (b = -0.16, p < .01). Anticipatory negative affect (worry) was not associated with intentions. At higher levels of anticipated regret, anticipated distress was less strongly associated with intentions to receive nonactionable results (b = 0.14, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the role of future-oriented emotions in genomic testing among participants who are typically underrepresented in genomic testing studies and behavioral medicine broadly. Future work should examine whether interventions targeting future-oriented emotions such as anticipated regret may have clinically meaningful effects in genetic counseling in similar cohorts.

Future-oriented emotions (emotions directed toward a future outcome, such as worrying about a future outcome, or expecting to feel distress or regret if a particular outcome occurs) are important predictors of health decisions, including decisions to seek and receive genomic testing results. Understanding how such factors relate to decisions to receive genetic testing results is particularly important in medically-underserved groups such as individuals of African ancestry, who are underrepresented in genomics and behavioral science research. We analyzed survey responses from a genomic sequencing cohort where all 408 participants identified as African, African-American, or Afro-Caribbean, and were asked about their level of worry, anticipated distress, and anticipated regret about results, plus their interest in receiving three types of genomic testing results from the study. We found that participants who expected that they would regret their decision to not learn the results had stronger intentions to receive all three types of results; those who expected to feel distressed by a genetic testing result that showed an increased risk for a fatal disease were less interested in nonactionable genetic testing results specifically. Our results highlight the differing roles of specific types of future-oriented emotions in genomic testing decisions, among participants who are typically underrepresented in this type of research.

Parental coping with uncertainties along the severe combined immunodeficiency journey.

BACKGROUND: Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) is a group of rare genetic disorders that cause disruption in immune system functioning. Parents of children with SCID experience many uncertainties related to their child's diagnosis, treatment, recovery, and quality of life. To fully understand parents' experiences throughout their SCID journey, it is important to explore the stressors generated by such uncertainties and how parents cope with these stressors. METHODS: We conducted 26 in-depth interviews with parents whose child was diagnosed with SCID or a SCID-like condition through newborn screening. The interviews explored uncertainties related to their child's diagnosis and how parents coped with these uncertainties. Transcripts were generated from the interviews and analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach which included data immersion, generation and assignment of codes, and interpretation. RESULTS: Parents used a variety of behavioral, cognitive, and affective coping strategies which evolved throughout their SCID journeys. Some parents reported coping by playing an active role in their child's treatment, which included reaching out to other SCID parents or seeking second medical opinions. Other types of coping included establishing house hygiene rules, thinking positively about the child's treatment progress, and relying on family members for help. These coping strategies were both deliberate and intuitive. Participants also described their struggles in coping with stressors related to their child's health and survival. They reported difficulty in processing their emotions and experiencing denial and guilt related to their child's diagnosis. Some parents adapted to ongoing uncertainties through such strategies as positive thinking, self-reflection, and relying on family and community. With successful adaptation, parents emphasized that they continue to use these strategies today. CONCLUSION: Our assessment revealed that parents of children diagnosed with SCID use a variety of behavioral, cognitive, and affective approaches to cope with SCID uncertainties. Although parents reported challenges in coping with SCID uncertainties, they also reported finding ways to overcome these stressors and establish patterns of effective coping. Findings from our study can serve as a guide for parents whose child was newly diagnosed with SCID and for providers such as social workers, genetic counselors, and psychologists.

An accessible, relational, inclusive, and actionable (ARIA) model of genetic counseling compared with usual care: Results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Effective approaches to communicate genomic information are needed to ensure equitable care. In a randomized controlled superiority trial, we tested a novel practice model that aims to make genetic counseling inclusive, by making the communication accessible, relational, and actionable (ARIA). METHODS: In total, 696 English- and Spanish-speaking patients aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for individuals from historically underserved backgrounds, were randomized in 1:1 ratio to ARIA or usual care. Primary outcomes were accuracy of recall, communication satisfaction, and perceived understanding. In total, 33 participants completed qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Recall and understanding were high for all participants. ARIA participants scored higher on the relationship scale of communication satisfaction (mean difference = 0.09, 95% CI = <0.01 to 0.17). Moderator analyses of communication satisfaction showed that those with lower health literacy reported less communication difficulty in ARIA and those using medical interpreters reported greater communication ease in ARIA. No significant difference was found on other primary and secondary outcomes. Qualitative data enhanced understanding of how and why ARIA can be effective. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that a genetic counseling intervention that focuses on specific communication skills to enhance relationship-building, patient engagement, and comprehension can be effective with all patients and may be especially valuable for patients of lower health literacy and Spanish-speakers who use a medical interpreter.

Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The introduction of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CGP) into clinical oncology allows the identification of molecular therapeutic targets. However, the potential complexity of genomic results and their implications may cause confusion and distress for patients undergoing CGP. We investigated the experience of advanced cancer patients receiving CGP results in a research setting. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 37 advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CGP results. Interviewees were purposively sampled based on CGP result, cancer type, age and gender to ensure diversity. Themes were derived from interview transcripts using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS: We identified six themes: (1) hoping against the odds; (2) managing expectations; (3) understanding is cursory; (4) communication of results is cursory; (5) genomics and incurable cancer; and (6) decisions about treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite enthusiasm regarding CGP about the hope it provides for new treatments, participants experienced challenges in understanding results, and acceptance of identified treatments was not automatic. Support is needed for patients undergoing CGP to understand the implications of testing and cope with non-actionable results.

Education and Consent for Population-Based DNA Screening: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Early Check Newborn Screening Pilot Study.

A challenge in implementing population-based DNA screening is providing sufficient information, that is, understandable and acceptable, and that supports informed decision making. Early Check is an expanded newborn screening study offered to mothers/guardians whose infants have standard newborn screening in North Carolina. We developed electronic education and consent to meet the objectives of feasibility, acceptability, trustworthiness, and supporting informed decisions. We used two methods to evaluate Early Check among mothers of participating infants who received normal results: an online survey and interviews conducted via telephone. Survey and interview domains included motivations for enrollment, acceptability of materials and processes, attitudes toward screening, knowledge recall, and trust. Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics and assessment of factors associated with knowledge recall and trust. Qualitative data were coded, and an inductive approach was used to identify themes across interviews. Survey respondents (n = 1,823) rated the following as the most important reasons for enrolling their infants: finding out if the baby has the conditions screened (43.0%), and that no additional blood samples were required (20.1%). Interview respondents (n = 24) reported the value of early knowledge, early intervention, and ease of participation as motivators. Survey respondents rated the study information as having high utility for decision making (mean 4.7 to 4.8 out of 5) and 98.2% agreed that they had sufficient information. Knowledge recall was relatively high (71.8-92.5% correct), as was trust in Early Check information (96.2% strongly agree/agree). Attitudes about Early Check screening were positive (mean 0.1 to 0.6 on a scale of 0-4, with lower scores indicating more positive attitudes) and participants did not regret participation (e.g., 98.6% strongly agreed/agreed Early Check was the right decision). Interview respondents further reported positive attitudes about Early Check materials and processes. Early Check provides a model for education and consent in large-scale DNA screening. We found evidence of high acceptability, trustworthiness and knowledge recall, and positive attitudes among respondents. Population-targeted programs need to uphold practices that result in accessible information for those from diverse backgrounds. Additional research on those who do not select screening, although ethically and practically challenging, is important to inform population-based DNA screening practices.

ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design. RESULTS: Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings. CONCLUSION: The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.

Further validation of the Perceptions of Uncertainties in Genome Sequencing scale among patients with cancer undergoing tumor sequencing.

It is important to understand how individuals perceive uncertainties and the consequent impact on their psychological well-being and health behavior. The Perceptions of Uncertainties in Genome Sequencing (PUGS) scale measures clinical, affective, and evaluative uncertainties about information from sequencing. The PUGS scale has been shown to be valid and reliable among individuals receiving results about their genomes. This study assessed whether its validity generalized to patients with cancer undergoing tumor sequencing. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on data from the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (n = 310) to identify a measurement model. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the adequacy of the resulting fit. EFA identified the same three-factor structure reported previously. CFA confirmed that the measurement model yielded a good fit (χ2 /df = 3.72, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.05, and RMSEA = 0.09) and satisfied convergent and discriminant validity. These findings provide further evidence of the validity and reliability of the PUGS scale in measuring three types of uncertainty. Continued application will facilitate an evidence-based approach to intervention and enhance understanding of what it is like to receive results. In turn, this will improve clinical outcomes as undergoing sequencing becomes an increasingly common experience.

Psychological outcomes in advanced cancer patients after receiving genomic tumor profiling results.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CGP) offers hope for personalized treatment for cancer patients when other treatment options have been exhausted. However, receipt of nonactionable or ambiguous results could be an ongoing source of distress. We investigated patterns of hope, anxiety, depression, and CGP-specific anxiety in advanced cancer patients after receiving CGP results and 2-3 months later. METHOD: Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal psychosocial substudy, embedded in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program, and had advanced solid cancers of any histological type with sufficient and accessible tissue for CGP. At T0 (before receiving CGP results), 1,431 participants completed sociodemographic, disease and psychosocial measures. At T1 (1-4 weeks after receiving CGP results) and T2 (2-3 months post-T1), 374 participants completed psychological outcome measures. Predictors of outcomes at T2 were identified using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Approximately 75% of participants did not experience significant hopelessness or distress at T1 and T2. Hope decreased by T2, yet general anxiety and CGP-specific anxiety also decreased. Receiving actionable results did not impact psychological outcomes at T2. At T2, lower hope, and higher anxiety, depression and CGP-specific anxiety were associated with lower self-efficacy. Psychological and demographic factors (age, socioeconomic status, language, medical occupation, urban living, family history of cancer) independently predicted one or more psychological trajectories. Worse health status and perceived susceptibility to cancer progression predicted hope and anxiety trajectories. CONCLUSION: Further research on interventions to best support patients undergoing CGP with high anxiety, hopelessness, fear of cancer progression, and poorer health is urgently needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychological predictors of advanced cancer patients' preferences for return of results from comprehensive tumor genomic profiling.

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty-four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty-nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self-efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty-six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self-efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes.

Effectively communicating comprehensive tumor genomic profiling results: Mitigating uncertainty for advanced cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To understand advanced cancer patients' experience of uncertainty when receiving comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results, and their perceptions of how healthcare provider (HCP) communication impacts uncertainty. METHODS: Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews with advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CTGP results. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, using an inductive approach. RESULTS: We identified three themes that illustrate patient experience of uncertainties when receiving CTGP results: 1. Type and degree of uncertainty fluctuates along with changing illness circumstances and the nature of the CTGP results; 2. HCPs' co-ordination of care and communication shapes uncertainty, with immediate, clearer and simpler information promoting certainty; and 3. Patients felt that communicating results to reduce relatives' uncertainty is important, with patients choosing the time and process for achieving this and desiring HCPs support. CONCLUSION: Oncology patients are confronted with an array of uncertainties. Clear, simple communication from HCPs about results and their implications, and support to manage uncertainty, will be of benefit. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If CTGP is to become routine clinical practice, clear communication will be crucial in reducing uncertainty. Awareness of potential uncertainties experienced by patients when receiving results, will assist HCPs to address uncertainties, reduce uncertainty where possible, and offer targeted support to patients struggling with uncertainty.