State of recent literature on communication about cancer genetic testing among Latinx populations

Ciencia, Genética, y ¿Desinformación?: A content analysis of genetic testing coverage from US Spanish-language news media

Genetic testing (GT) has become ubiquitous in the United States, either in clinical or direct-to-consumer markets. White and English-speaking populations have primarily benefited from this new technology, leaving other groups, like Hispanic populations, behind. Explanations for this disparity has cited a lack of awareness and knowledge of genetic testing purposes. Science communication from English-language media play an important role in setting initial attitudes and influencing decision-making for audiences. However, Spanish-language media have virtually no research published on documented potential effects for GT utilization despite the continued growth of Hispanic Spanish-speaking groups in the United States. Thus, this study characterized coverage of GT from two of the most prominent US Spanish-language media outlets, Telemundo and Univision. Over a 12-year time period, we identified 235 written articles of GT, mainly focusing on forensics applications, followed by gossip and health. There were 292 sources referenced across all 235 articles drawing from governmental agencies or officials, other news agencies, and medical institutions or officials. The findings suggest that coverage of GT among Spanish-language news outlets is limited. When Spanish-language news outlets do cover GT, they focus on aspects of intrigue or entertainment more than demystifying and explaining GT. Stories tend to cite other published articles, with author attribution often missing, leading to questions of comfort of Spanish-media to cover these topics. Further, the publishing process may lead to confusion of the purpose of genetic testing for health purposes and may bias Spanish-speaking groups towards genetic testing for health purposes. Thus, reconciliation and education initiatives around genetic testing purposes are needed for Spanish-speaking communities from not only media, but also genetics providers and institutions.

Communication About Negative and Uncertain Results: Interactional Dilemmas During a Genetic Telehealth Consult

This case study focuses on a video telehealth consult to discuss genetic testing results. Participants include a Genetic Counselor (GC) and a Patient (P) previously diagnosed with ovarian cancer who is currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Utilizing conversation analysis (CA), attention is first given to a series of interactional dilemmas as GC delivers and P responds to negative, uncertain, and complex test results. Specific findings address practices employed by GC to structure the encounter and establish authority, impacts on P's participation and understandings, recurring and at times problematic orientations to "negative" findings, and inherent ambiguities faced by GC and P when attempting to discern good and bad news. Close examination of these moments provides a unique opportunity to identify, describe, and explain genetic counseling as a co-produced, interactional achievement. These findings are then integrated with patient's post-counseling survey (susceptibility, anxiety, uncertainty, fear, and hope), including reported experiences which broaden understandings of the interactional environment. Specific recommendations are raised for improving counseling skills, enhancing patients' understandings, and building therapeutic alliances addressing both patients' emotional circumstances and the complexities of genetic test results.

Communicating risk and the landscape of cancer prevention - an exploratory study that examines perceptions of cancer-related genetic counseling and testing among African Americans and Latinos in the Midwest

African American (AA) and Latino populations are impacted disproportionately by cancer incidence and mortality compared to the general US population. Contributing to these rates are multiple inheritable cancers that impact both men and women. Some of these diseases may be detected through genetic counseling and germline DNA testing; however, AA and Latinos are unaware and have limited knowledge and thus significantly underutilize these services and technologies. Research to detect influencing factors to testing uptake has also been slow due to multiple factors. The research team followed a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach and worked with a Community Advisory Board composed of cancer survivors and co-survivors to design the exploratory study. Six focus groups were held with a pilot sample of African Americans and Latinos who self-reported to be at-risk for cancer (N = 53). The study was held over a 2-month period where attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about cancer risk and preference regarding cancer-related genetic counseling and testing risk communication were explored. Themes that emerged included (1) the lack of knowledge about cancer-related genetic counseling and testing; (2) cancer is feared often; (3) cancer-related genetic testing was perceived as something that could help but was also perceived as unnecessary testing that exposed individuals to medical harm; and (4) benefits to test were perceived as favorable for medical personnel but not for the patient. Implications of the study provide a unique lens to explore how lived experiences among AA and Latinos may inform strategic risk communication about cancer-related genetic counseling and testing and help advance cancer health equity. Participants viewed cancer genetic testing as important cancer risk prevention strategies. Identification of perceptions of cancer risk and cancer-related genetic counseling and testing in collaboration with members of the community is needed to bolster communication efforts among these populations.

Perspectives on Spanish language concordant cancer genetic counseling sessions from the Spanish-speaking population

Genetic counselors (GCs) provide risk assessment, education, and counseling about the genetic contribution to disease. To do so, they must effectively communicate, build rapport, and help patients make the best decisions for themselves and their families. Language barriers add a complex layer to this patient-provider dynamic. While interpreters serve as a primary solution when a patient and GC speak different languages, issues have been documented with these sessions, such as misinterpreted genetic terminology (Gutierrez et al., 2017). Having a GC with concordant language skills may help address these barriers. The purpose of this study was to assess Spanish-speaking patients' perspectives on communication, decision-making, and the interpersonal relationship developed with a bilingual GC in language concordant cancer genetic counseling sessions. Spanish-speaking patients, ages 18 or older, seen by a Spanish-speaking GC at a California public, safety-net hospital were eligible to participate in this study. Nine participants were interviewed via telephone by the bilingual researcher using a semi-structured interview guide to assess three domains: communication, decision-making, and interpersonal relationship. Analyses of interview transcripts identified themes within these three areas of focus: (1) participants felt all explanations were clear and they were not afraid to ask questions in the session, (2) participants experienced preference-concordant decision making, and (3) participants felt empowered and supported by the GC. Participants suggested that GCs working with Spanish-speaking patients in the future should consider group counseling sessions, engaging in outreach efforts to educate the Spanish-speaking community about genetics, and increasing the number of GCs who speak Spanish. These results demonstrate the positive experiences of Spanish-speaking patients in language concordant cancer genetic counseling sessions and further support the need for recruitment of Spanish-speaking individuals into the profession. Future research should further assess the experience of Spanish-speaking patients in language concordant sessions and address the role of cultural concordance in sessions.

Barriers to family history collection among Spanish-speaking primary care patients: a BRIDGE qualitative study

Objectives

Family history is an important tool for assessing disease risk, and tailoring recommendations for screening and genetic services referral. This study explored barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients.

Methods

This qualitative study was conducted in two US healthcare systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical assistants, physicians, and interpreters with experience collecting family history for Spanish-speaking patients.

Results

The most common patient-level barrier was the perception that some Spanish-speaking patients had limited knowledge of family history. Interpersonal communication barriers related to dialectical differences and decisions about using formal interpreters vs. Spanish-speaking staff. Organizational barriers included time pressures related to using interpreters, and ad hoc workflow adaptations for Spanish-speaking patients that might leave gaps in family history collection.

Conclusions

This study identified multi-level barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients in primary care. Findings suggest that a key priority to enhance communication would be to standardize processes for working with interpreters.

Innovation

To improve communication with and care provided to Spanish-speaking patients, there is a need to increase healthcare provider awareness about implicit bias, to address ad hoc workflow adjustments within practice settings, to evaluate the need for professional interpreter services, and to improve digital tools to facilitate family history collection.

Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women

Sequencing technologies can inform individuals’ risks for multiple conditions, supporting population-level screening approaches. Prior research examining interest in genetic testing has not generally examined the context of population-based approaches offered in routine healthcare or among ethnically diverse populations. Cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening could be offered broadly to women of reproductive age. This study therefore examined interest in these tests when offered as part of routine care, and predictors of interest, among an ethnically diverse sample of women aged 20–35. We conducted an online English-language survey of 450 women; 39% identified as Latina. We examined predictors of interest for two outcomes, interest in testing in the next year and level of interest, in multivariable logistic regression models and stratified analyses by Latina ethnicity. More than half of respondents reported being interested in cancer predisposition testing (55%) and carrier screening (56%) in the next year; this did not differ by ethnicity. About 26% reported being very interested in cancer predisposition testing and 27% in carrier screening. Latina respondents (32%) were more likely to be very interested in cancer predisposition testing than non-Latina respondents (22%; p < 0.03). In multivariable models, having higher worry about genetic risks, higher genetic knowledge, and higher perceived importance of genetic information were associated with higher interest across multiple models. Predictors of interest were generally similar by ethnicity. Our findings show substantial interest in both cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening among young women as part of routine healthcare with similar interest between Latina and non-Latina women. Efforts to broadly offer such testing could be important in improving access to genetic information. It will be critical to develop tools to help healthcare providers communicate about genetic testing and to address the needs of those who have less prior knowledge about genetics to support informed decision making.

Behavioral and Psychological Outcomes Associated with Skin Cancer Genetic Testing in Albuquerque Primary Care

Simple Summary

Genetic information is publicly available but research examining the best use of such information has not engaged diverse members of the public. We examined public reactions to melanoma genetic testing (using the melanocortin-1 receptor [MC1R] gene) in a study randomizing (like the flip of a coin) 600 diverse primary care patients to a MC1R test offer or usual care. We found that testing did not improve sun protection and skin cancer screening, nor did it lead worry to increase. However, groups less aware of their skin cancer risk, including those who thought their risk was “unlikely” at the start of the study, showed significant improvements in sun protection at three months. In conclusion, testing might be very helpful for certain people who have the most to learn about their risk, who may become motivated to protect themselves from the damaging effects of the sun as a result of skin cancer genetic testing.

Abstract

Public availability of genetic information is increasing; thus, efforts to improve diversity in basic and translational research in genomics is a top priority. Given the increasing U.S. incidence and mortality of melanoma, and the prevalence of common melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene melanoma risk variants in the general population, we examined genomic testing of MC1R for skin cancer risk in a randomized controlled trial in Albuquerque, New Mexico primary care. Participants were 48% Hispanic and were randomized 5:1 to a MC1R test invitation or usual care. We assessed 3 month sun protection, skin cancer screening, and skin cancer worry outcomes associated with testing, and key effect moderators (e.g., cancer risk perceptions, and skin cancer risk factors). Our findings indicate that the primary outcomes were unchanged by the MC1R test offer, test acceptance, and level of risk feedback. Moderator analyses showed that those with lower risk perception, and those with skin that readily tans, significantly increased their sun protection in response to higher than average risk feedback. Risk feedback did not prompt cancer worry, and average risk feedback did not erode existing sun protection. This study paves the way for the development of tailored strategies to address low skin cancer risk awareness in this understudied context of public health genomics.