A comparison of the background, needs, and expectations of patients seeking genetic counseling services

Uncertainty in the Process of Communicating Cancer-related Genetic Risk Information with Patients: A Scoping Review

In the era of precision medicine, patients must manage the uncertainty caused by ambiguous genetic information. To aid health practitioners in effectively communicating genetic information, this study classified the types of uncertainty involved in these communication processes. A search of recent literature turned up 64 articles that measured and/or discussed patients' perceptions and/or feelings of uncertainty related to the communication process of cancer-related genetic information. In reviewing these papers, six types of uncertainty regarding cancer-related genetic information were identified: (1) uncertainty about understanding genetic information (n = 25; 39.1%); (2) uncertainty about future cancer risks (n = 34; 53.1%); (3) uncertainty about managing known genetic information or mutation status (n = 33; 51.6%); (4) uncertainty about the utility of genetic information (n = 5; 7.8%); (5) uncertainty about genetic test results before undergoing testing or receiving the results (n = 10; 15.6%); and (6) uncertainty about the impact of genetic results on family and life (n = 11; 17.2%). These six types of uncertainty serve as a helpful taxonomy for developing, validating, and utilizing future measures of uncertainty in the context of cancer-related genetic risk communication.

Development of FOCUS-GC: Framework for Outcomes of Clinical Communication Services in Genetic Counseling

Conceptual frameworks bring together existing theories and models in order to identify, consolidate, and fill in gaps between theory, practice, and evidence. Given the vast number of possible outcomes that could be studied in genetic counseling, a framework for organizing outcomes and postulating relationships between communication services and genetic counseling outcomes was sought. Through an iterative approach involving literature review, thematic analysis, and consolidation, outcomes and processes were categorized to create and define components of a conceptual framework. The final product, "Framework for Outcomes of Clinical commUnication Services" (FOCUS) contains the following domains: communication strategy; communication process measures; patient care experience, patient changes, patient health; and family changes. A website was created to allow easier access and ongoing modifications to the framework. In addition, a step-by-step guide and two examples were created to show flexibility in how the framework can be used. FOCUS may help in conceptualizing, organizing and summarizing outcomes research related to risk communication and counseling in genetic service delivery as well as other healthcare settings.

Personalized genomic results: analysis of informational needs

Use of genomic information in healthcare is increasing; however data on the needs of consumers of genomic information is limited. The Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative (CPMC) is a longitudinal study investigating the utility of personalized medicine. Participants receive results reflecting risk of common complex conditions and drug-gene pairs deemed actionable by an external review board. To explore the needs of individuals receiving genomic information we reviewed all genetic counseling sessions with CPMC participants. A retrospective qualitative review of notes from 157 genetic counseling inquiries was conducted. Notes were coded for salient themes. Five primary themes; "understanding risk", "basic genetics", "complex disease genetics", "what do I do now?" and "other" were identified. Further review revealed that participants had difficulty with basic genetic concepts, confused relative and absolute risks, and attributed too high a risk burden to individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Despite these hurdles, counseled participants recognized that behavior changes could potentially mitigate risk and there were few comments alluding to an overly deterministic or fatalistic interpretation of results. Participants appeared to recognize the multifactorial nature of the diseases for which results were provided; however education to understand the complexities of genomic risk information was often needed.