Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
What improves the likelihood of people receiving genetic test results communicating to their families about genetic risk?
Bowen, Deborah J; Makhnoon, Sukh; Shirts, Brian H; Fullerton, Stephanie M; Larson, Eric; Ralston, James D; Leppig, Kathleen; Crosslin, David R; Veenstra, David; Jarvik, Gail P.
Affiliation
  • Bowen DJ; Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. Electronic address: dbowen@uw.edu.
  • Makhnoon S; Department of Behavioral Science, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
  • Shirts BH; Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
  • Fullerton SM; Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
  • Larson E; Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, USA.
  • Ralston JD; Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, USA; Department of Bioinformatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
  • Leppig K; Genetic Services, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, USA.
  • Crosslin DR; Department of Bioinformatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
  • Veenstra D; Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
  • Jarvik GP; Departments of Medicine (Medical Genetics) and Genome Sciences, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, USA.
Patient Educ Couns ; 104(4): 726-731, 2021 04.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33455827
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

We currently rely on probands to communicate genetic testing results and health risks within a family to stimulate preventive behaviors, such as cascade testing. Rates of guidelines-based cascade testing are low, possibly due to low frequency or non-urgent communication of risk among family members. Understanding what is being communicated and why may help improve interventions that increase communication and rates of cascade testing.

METHODS:

Participants (n = 189) who were to receive both positive and negative colorectal cancer (CRC) sequencing results completed surveys on family communication, family functioning, impact of cancer in the family, and future communication of risk and were participants in eMERGE3. Questions were taken from existing surveys and administered electronically using email and a web driven tool.

RESULTS:

Common family member targets of CRC risk communication, before results were received, were mothers and fathers, then sisters and grandchildren and finally, children and brothers. A communication impact score of 0.66 (sd = 0.83) indicated low-to-moderate communication impact. Age and education were significantly associated with frequency of familial communication, but not on the cancer-related impact of familial communication.

CONCLUSIONS:

There is infrequent communication about cancer risk from probands to family members. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS These results demonstrate an opportunity to help families improve communication.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Colorectal Neoplasms / Genetic Testing Type of study: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Female / Humans / Male Language: En Journal: Patient Educ Couns Year: 2021 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Colorectal Neoplasms / Genetic Testing Type of study: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Female / Humans / Male Language: En Journal: Patient Educ Couns Year: 2021 Document type: Article