A systematic review of communication interventions to help healthcare professionals discuss genetic testing for breast cancer

Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Despite evidence supporting genetic testing's utility in hereditary cancer risk management, uptake remains low among at-risk relatives of a hereditary cancer patient. The qualitative systematic review aims to identify the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic counselling services and/or genetic testing (GC/GT). A systematic literature search was performed across six databases in June 2023, limited to studies published in English from 2010 onwards. Qualitative studies interviewing hereditary cancer patients, their relatives, and/or healthcare providers to identify the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndrome were eligible for inclusion. A thematic analysis was conducted on the extracted data from 41 eligible qualitative studies. 54% of the studies were from the United States and 75% of the participants were female. 14 psychosocial barriers and nine facilitators to the uptake of genetic testing services were identified. The most frequently cited psychosocial barriers to genetic testing uptake were 'emotional roller coaster', 'threat of genetic discrimination', and 'no perceived benefit of genetic testing'. In contrast, the most common facilitators were 'concern for family', 'easing personal worries', and 'knowledge is empowering'. Our findings reveal complex factors affecting GC/GT service uptake, some with dual effects.

Information needs persist after genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 and Lynch Syndrome

PURPOSE

Research has shown that cancer genetic risk is often not well understood by patients undergoing genetic testing and counseling. We describe the barriers to understanding genetic risk and the needs of high-risk persons and cancer survivors who have undergone genetic testing.

METHODS

Using data from an internet survey of adults living in the USA who responded 'yes' to having ever had a genetic test to determine cancer risk (N = 696), we conducted bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations between demographic, clinical, and communication-related variables by our key outcome of having vs. not having enough information about genetics and cancer to speak with family. Percentages for yes and no responses to queries about unmet informational needs were calculated. Patient satisfaction with counseling and percentage disclosure of genetic risk status to family were also calculated.

RESULTS

We found that a lack of resources provided by provider to inform family members and a lack of materials provided along with genetic test results were strongly associated with not having enough information about genetics and cancer (OR 4.54 95% CI 2.40-8.59 and OR 2.19 95% CI 1.16-4.14 respectively). Among participants undergoing genetic counseling, almost half reported needing more information on what genetic risk means for them and their family and how genetic testing results might impact future screening.

CONCLUSION

High levels of satisfaction with genetic counseling may not give a full picture of the patient-provider interaction and may miss potential unmet needs of the patient. Accessible resources and ongoing opportunities for updating family history information could reinforce knowledge about genetic risk.

Experiences across a genetic screening and testing programme pathway: a qualitative study of mammogram patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

Population-based genetic screening and testing programmes have substantial potential to improve cancer-related outcomes through early detection and cancer prevention. Yet, genetic testing for cancer risk remains largely underused. This study aimed to describe barriers and facilitators to patient engagement at each stage of a California-based genetic screening programme, from completing the electronic screener to receiving the test and to identify potential improvements that could support precision medicine-based approaches to patient care.

METHODS

We conducted 26 semistructured interviews among programme participants who did not complete the screener (n=9), those who did not receive the recommended test (n=7) and those who received a genetic test (n=10). Interviewees were selected from patients who recently received a mammogram through one of the participating Southern California clinics. Interviews were transcribed and coded using Atlas.ti. The study used a qualitative descriptive approach to identify similar and contrasting themes among the participant groups.

RESULTS

This study found that barriers and facilitators to engagement were largely the same regardless of how far participants had moved through the process towards getting a genetic test. We identified four overarching themes: participants wanted clear communication of personal benefits at each stage; participants needed additional information and knowledge to navigate genetic screening and testing; a trusted provider could be instrumental in participants following a recommendation; and repetition and timing strongly impacted participants' likelihood to engage.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing education about the benefits of genetic screening and testing to patients and their families, as well as clear communication about what each step entails may help patients engage with similar programmes. Strategies aimed at increasing coordination among a patient's healthcare team can also help ensure information reaches patients in multiple ways, from multiple providers, to increase the likelihood that recommendations for testing come from trusted sources, which supports the uptake of genetic testing.

"For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022

BACKGROUND

Personalized breast cancer screening is a novel strategy that estimates individual risk based on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, personal history of benign breast lesions, and polygenic risk. Its goal is to propose personalized early detection recommendations for women in the target population based on their individual risk. Our aim was to synthesize the factors that influence women's decision to participate in personalized breast cancer screening, from the perspective of women and health care professionals.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative evidence on factors influencing participation in personalized Breast Cancer Screening. We searched in Medline, Web of science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for qualitative and mixed methods studies published up to March 2022. Two reviewers conducted study selection and extracted main findings. We applied the best-fit framework synthesis and adopted the Multilevel influences on the cancer care continuum model for analysis. After organizing initial codes into the seven levels of the selected model, we followed thematic analysis and developed descriptive and analytical themes. We assessed the methodological quality with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies published between 2017 and 2022, conducted in developed countries. Nine studies were focused on women (n = 478) and in four studies women had participated in a personalized screening program. Nine studies focused in health care professionals (n = 162) and were conducted in primary care and breast cancer screening program settings. Factors influencing women's decision to participate relate to the women themselves, the type of program (personalized breast cancer screening) and perspective of health care professionals. Factors that determined women participation included persistent beliefs and insufficient knowledge about breast cancer and personalized screening, variable psychological reactions, and negative attitudes towards breast cancer risk estimates. Other factors against participation were insufficient health care professionals knowledge on genetics related to breast cancer and personalized screening process. The factors that were favourable included the women's perceived benefits for themselves and the positive impact on health systems.

CONCLUSION

We identified the main factors influencing women's decisions to participate in personalized breast cancer screening. Factors related to women, were the most relevant negative factors. A future implementation requires improving health literacy for women and health care professionals, as well as raising awareness of the strategy in society.

Pakistani healthcare professionals' perceptions of communication with patients and their relatives about hereditary breast cancer: a qualitative study in a LMIC

Pakistan has the highest incidence and mortality rates of breast cancer in Asia, with high numbers of patients diagnosed at a young age suggesting the possibility of an inherited cancer syndrome. Communication of hereditary breast cancer (HBC) risk information with patients could enable earlier detection of the condition in relatives and reduce mortality rates. This study aimed to explore perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Pakistan about communication with patients and their relatives about HBC. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eighteen HCPs during March to May 2020 in Lahore. Thematic analysis shows the HCPs were generally supportive of informing patients themselves about HBC, but believed it was the patients' role to inform their relatives. HCPs also highlighted important barriers to communication with patients about HBC, including (i) patients' low socioeconomic status and educational attainment; (ii) high prevalence of the social stigma of breast cancer; and (iii) lack of health resources and facilities to provide genetic testing for HBC. In conclusion, HCPs would value the development of interventions to support communication between HCPs and patients. They also highlighted the need for interventions to support intrafamilial communication about HBC. Much research and political support are needed to address patient, social, and systemic-level barriers to facilitate communication about HBC.

General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services.

DESIGN

A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing.

INFORMATION SOURCES

The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes.

RESULTS

A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.

Talking about Risk, UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING): development and evaluation of an educational programme for healthcare professionals about BRCA1 & BRCA2 testing

BACKGROUND

Mainstreaming of germline testing demands that all healthcare professionals have good communication skills, but few have genetic testing and counselling experience. We developed and evaluated educational workshops-Talking about Risk & UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING). Contents included: presentations and exercises, an interview with a geneticist about BRCA testing, screening and prevention implications, filmed interactions between surgeons, a genetic counsellor and geneticists with a fictitious family (proband had a BRCA2 pathogenic variant with triple-negative breast cancer, her older sister-BRCA2 heterozygous, and cousin-negative for BRCA2 variant).

METHODS

Twenty-one surgeons, 5 oncologists, 18 nurses and 9 genetic counsellors participated. Knowledge (18 item MCQ), communication skills (responses to 6 questions from proband and relatives) and self-confidence (discussing 9 genetic testing issues) were assessed pre- and post workshop.

RESULTS

Knowledge scores improved significantly post workshop (mean change = 7.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.37-7.74; P < 0.001), as did communication (mean change = 5.38; 95% CI 4.37-6.38; P < 0.001) and self-confidence (P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Healthcare professionals' knowledge and self-confidence when discussing the risks and uncertainties in genetics are often poor. TRUSTING workshops significantly enhanced attendees' navigation of communication difficulties encountered and will be rolled out more widely.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

The Feasibility of Implementing Mainstream Germline Genetic Testing in Routine Cancer Care-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Germline genetic testing for patients with cancer can have important implications for treatment, preventive options, and for family members. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, pre-test counseling is performed by non-genetic healthcare professionals, thereby making genetic testing more accessible to all patients who might benefit from it. These mainstream genetic testing pathways are being implemented in different hospitals around the world, and for different cancer types. It is important to evaluate how a mainstream genetic testing pathway can be made sustainable and if quality of genetic care is maintained. We show in this systematic review that it is feasible to incorporate a mainstream genetic testing pathway into routine cancer care while maintaining quality of care. A training procedure for non-genetic healthcare professionals and a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments are highly recommended to ensure sustainability.

Abstract

Background: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. Results: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). Conclusions: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments.

Patient-reported anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing cancer genetic risk information with family members

While prior studies have largely focused on family communication of diagnostic single-gene test results or specific types of cancer testing results, far less work has investigated family communication of cancer-related genetic results that include multi-gene panels, a broad array of cancer types/stages, and participants without family history of cancer. The study we report here examined individuals' anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing genetic information with family members. An 80+ gene panel was performed on participants recruited from Mayo Clinic, diagnosed with different cancer types, who did not have a family history suggestive of an inherited risk. Participants completed a 49-item survey before receiving genetic test results. Family variant testing was provided to family members at no cost, allowing factors influencing intent to share to be examined in the absence of financial burdens. In all, 1721 of 2984 individuals who received genetic testing completed the survey (57.7% completion rate). Participants' intent to share with parents, siblings, and children was inversely related to the number of anticipated barriers to sharing and directly related to the number of anticipated benefits to sharing. Of those participants who did not intend to share with parents, siblings, and adult children, 64.8%, 30.3%, and 67.6% reported that there were no barriers, while 17.1%, 24.5%, and 40.2.% reported there were no benefits. Findings indicate that barriers to sharing genetic information with family members vary across family member types, and an inability to identify at least one benefit of sharing with family members is a predictor of intent not to share.

Multiple approaches to enhancing cancer communication in the next decade: translating research into practice and policy

Communicating risk and other health information in a clear, understandable, and actionable manner is critical for the prevention and control of cancer, as well as the care of affected individuals and their family members. However, the swift pace of development in communication technologies has dramatically changed the health communication landscape. This digital era presents new opportunities and challenges for cancer communication research and its impact on practice and policy. In this article, we examine the science of health communication focused on cancer and highlight important areas of research for the coming decade. Specifically, we discuss three domains in which cancer communication may occur: (a) among patients and their healthcare providers; (b) within and among families and social networks; and (c) across communities, populations, and the public more broadly. We underscore findings from the prior decade of cancer communication research, provide illustrative examples of future directions for cancer communication science, and conclude with considerations for diverse populations. Health informatics studies will be necessary to fully understand the growing and complex communication settings related to cancer: such works have the potential to change the face of information exchanges about cancer and elevate our collective discourse about this area as newer clinical and public health priorities emerge. Researchers from a wide array of specialties are interested in examining and improving cancer communication. These interdisciplinary perspectives can rapidly advance and help translate findings of cancer communication in the field of behavioral medicine.