A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Outcomes of Genetic Counseling

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: a review of barriers and breakthroughs

Germline genetic sequencing is now at the forefront of cancer treatment and preventative medicine. Cascade genetic testing, or the testing of at-risk relatives, is extremely promising as it offers genetic testing and potentially life-saving risk-reduction strategies to a population exponentially enriched for the risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. However, many relatives do not complete cascade testing due to barriers that span individual, relationship, healthcare community, and societal/policy domains. We have reviewed the published research on cascade testing. Our aim is to evaluate barriers to cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and explore strategies to mitigate these barriers, with the goal of promoting increased uptake of cascade genetic testing.

Linking genetic counseling communication skills to patient outcomes and experiences using a community-engagement and provider-engagement approach: research protocol for the GC-PRO mixed methods sequential explanatory study

INTRODUCTION

In over 50 years since the genetic counseling (GC) profession began, a systematic study of GC communication skills and patient-reported outcomes in actual sessions across multiple clinical specialties has never been conducted. To optimize GC quality and improve efficiency of care, the field must first be able to comprehensively measure GC skills and determine which skills are most critical to achieving positive patient experiences and outcomes. This study aims to characterise GC communication skills using a novel and pragmatic measure and link variations in communication skills to patient-reported outcomes, across clinical specialties and with patients from diverse backgrounds in the USA. Our community-engagement and provider-engagement approach is crucial to develop recommendations for quality, culturally informed GC care, which are greatly needed to improve GC practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed methods, sequential explanatory design will be used to collect and analyze: audio-recorded GC sessions in cancer, cardiac, and prenatal/reproductive genetic indications; pre-visit and post-visit quantitative surveys capturing patient experiences and outcomes and post-visit qualitative interview data. A novel, practical checklist will measure GC communication skills. Coincidence analysis will identify patterns of GC skills that are consistent with high scores on patient-reported measures. Two-level, multilevel models will be used to evaluate how GC communication skills and other session/patient characteristics predict patient-reported outcomes. Four community advisory boards (CABs) and a genetic counselor advisory board will inform the study design and analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the single Institutional Review Board of the University of Minnesota. This research poses no greater than minimal risk to participants. Results from this study will be shared through national and international conferences and through community-based dissemination as guided by the study's CABs. A lay summary will also be disseminated to all participants.

Management of phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma in patients with germline SDHB pathogenic variants: an international expert Consensus statement

Adult and paediatric patients with pathogenic variants in the gene encoding succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) subunit B (SDHB) often have locally aggressive, recurrent or metastatic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGLs). Furthermore, SDHB PPGLs have the highest rates of disease-specific morbidity and mortality compared with other hereditary PPGLs. PPGLs with SDHB pathogenic variants are often less differentiated and do not produce substantial amounts of catecholamines (in some patients, they produce only dopamine) compared with other hereditary subtypes, which enables these tumours to grow subclinically for a long time. In addition, SDHB pathogenic variants support tumour growth through high levels of the oncometabolite succinate and other mechanisms related to cancer initiation and progression. As a result, pseudohypoxia and upregulation of genes related to the hypoxia signalling pathway occur, promoting the growth, migration, invasiveness and metastasis of cancer cells. These factors, along with a high rate of metastasis, support early surgical intervention and total resection of PPGLs, regardless of the tumour size. The treatment of metastases is challenging and relies on either local or systemic therapies, or sometimes both. This Consensus statement should help guide clinicians in the diagnosis and management of patients with SDHB PPGLs.

Experiences of Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer in Medically Underserved Populations-A Qualitative Study

We sought to explore the intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing (CGT) experiences of patients with hereditary cancer from diverse, medically underserved populations and their relatives. Participants included patients receiving oncology care at an urban, safety net hospital in Texas or comprehensive cancer center in Alabama and their first-degree relatives. In-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed wherein patients shared their experiences with genetic counseling (GC), genetic testing (GT), and communicating their results to relatives. Relatives shared their experiences receiving information from the patient and considering CGT. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and themes were identified. Of 25 participating patients, most recalled key aspects of GC and their GT results. Most (80%) patients shared their results with relatives, but only some relatives underwent CGT; patients reported low perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer as a common barrier to CGT for their relatives. Of 16 participating relatives, most reported feeling distress upon learning the patient's GT results. Relatives were fearful of learning their own CGT results but identified prevention and early detection as CGT benefits. Interviews identified opportunities during family communication to improve relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer. Tailored resources may support patients and relatives experiencing distress and fear during GT.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

This study of intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing experiences of patients with hereditary cancer and their relatives from diverse, medically underserved populations identified relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer risks, distress, and fear as frequent reactions and barriers to testing. These results may inform future hereditary cancer prevention efforts.

Racial disparities in cancer genetic counseling encounters: study protocol for investigating patient-genetic counselor communication in the naturalistic clinical setting using a convergent mixed methods design

BACKGROUND

Despite decades of effort to reduce racial cancer disparities, Black people continue to die at higher rates from cancer than any other U.S. racial group. Because prevention is a key to the cost-effective and long-term control of cancer, the potential for cancer genetic counseling to play a central role in reducing racial cancer disparities is high. However, the benefits of genetic counseling are not equitable across race. Only 2% of genetic counselors self-identify as Black/African American, so most genetic counseling encounters with Black patients are racially discordant. Patients in racially discordant medical interactions tend to have poorer quality patient-provider communication and receive suboptimal clinical recommendations. One major factor that contributes to these healthcare disparities is racial bias. Drawing on findings from prior research, we hypothesize that genetic counselor providers' implicit racial prejudice will be associated negatively with the quality of patient-provider communication, while providers' explicit negative racial stereotypes will be associated negatively with the comprehensiveness of clinical discussions of cancer risk and genetic testing for Black (vs. White) patients.

METHODS

Using a convergent mixed methods research design, we will collect data from at least 15 genetic counseling providers, from two different institutions, and their 220 patients (approximately equal number of Black and White patients per provider) whose appointments are for a hereditary cancer condition. The data sources will include two provider surveys, two patient surveys, video- and/or audio-recordings of genetic counseling encounters, and medical chart reviews. The recorded cancer genetic counseling in-person and telehealth encounters will be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to assess the quality of patient-provider communication and the comprehensiveness of clinical discussion. Those data will be linked to pre- and post-encounter survey data and data from medical chart reviews to test our hypotheses.

DISCUSSION

Findings from this multi-site study will highlight specific aspects of cancer genetic counseling encounters (patient-provider communication and clinical recommendations) that are directly associated with patient-centered outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, trust, genetic testing completion). Patient-provider communication and clinical recommendations are modifiable factors that can be integrated into current genetic counseling training curricula and thus can have immediate impact on genetic counseling training and practice.

Effectiveness of physical activity interventions on reducing perceived fatigue among adults with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Fatigue is barrier of physical activity participation in adults with chronic conditions. However, physical activity alleviates fatigue symptoms. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the effects of physical activity interventions on fatigue reduction and (2) evaluate their effectiveness. Medline/CINAHL/EMBASE/Web of Science and Scopus were searched up to June 24th, 2023. Two reviewers independently conducted study screening and selection (RCTs), extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB2). Outcome was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals in fatigue between experimental and control groups. 38 articles met the inclusion criteria. Overall, physical activity interventions moderately reduced fatigue (SMD = 0.54, p < 0.0001). Interventions lasting 2-6 weeks demonstrated a larger effect on fatigue reduction (SMD = 0.86, p < 0.00001). Interventions with 18-24 sessions showed a large effect on fatigue reduction (SMD = 0.97, p < 0.00001). Aerobic cycling and combination training interventions had a large to moderate effect (SMD = 0.66, p = 0.0005; SMD = 0.60, p = 0.0010, respectively). No long-term effects were found during follow-up. Physical activity interventions moderately reduced fatigue among adults with chronic conditions. Duration, total sessions, and mode of physical activity were identified as key factors in intervention effectiveness. Further research is needed to explore the impact of physical activity interventions on fatigue.

Effects of a pre-visit online information tool about genetic counselling for ovarian cancer patients, a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

In the Netherlands, patients with ovarian cancer are offered genetic testing. Pre-test preparation may help counseling patients. The aim of this study was to determine if use of a web-based intervention, leads to more effective genetic counseling of ovarian cancer patients.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2018, 127 ovarian cancer patients referred for genetic counseling in our hospital participated in this trial. 104 Patients were analyzed. All patients filled out questionnaires pre- and post-counseling. The intervention group also completed a questionnaire after visiting an online tool. Length of consultation, patients' satisfaction, knowledge, anxiety, depression and distress were compared before and after counselling.

RESULTS

The intervention group had the same level of knowledge compared to the counseling group, but at an earlier point in time. They were satisfied with the intervention (86%) and better prepared for counseling (66%). The intervention did not lead to shorter consultations. No differences in levels of anxiety, depression, distress and satisfaction were observed.

CONCLUSION

Although consultation length was unaffected, the improvements in knowledge after online education and patients satisfaction indicates that this tool can be an effective addition to genetic counseling.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Use of an educational tool may lead to a more effective, personalized way of genetic counselling and enables shared decision making.

Examining the effect of patient personality types and coping styles on outcomes of genetic counseling

Both empirical data and genetic counselors' clinical experience suggest that patients differ in the extent to which they benefit from genetic counseling (GC). Understanding the origins of these differences could help adapt services to ensure that all patients benefit fully, and potentially inform triage. Although patient personality dimensions and coping styles have been shown to influence outcomes of other psychological interventions, they have remained largely unexplored in relation to GC outcomes. We conducted an exploratory, descriptive study to assess relationships between patient personality dimensions, coping styles, and outcomes of GC. We recruited patients from a psychiatric genetics clinic who had - in the prior 7 years - completed the GC Outcomes Scale (GCOS, a measure of empowerment) immediately prior to, and approximately one month after their appointment, and asked them to complete validated measures of personality and coping style. Interactions between each personality dimension or coping style and GCOS score were assessed using mixed-effects linear regression models. Among the 169 participants, GCOS score increased by an average of 16.48 points (SD = 12.59). Though extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and all three coping styles significantly predicted GCOS score (p < 0.02), there was no relationship between these variables and time. For example, though a high score on conscientiousness predicted higher GCOS scores, it did not predict greater change in GCOS - people with higher scores on this dimension of personality had higher GCOS scores both pre- and post- GC. These preliminary data suggest that genetic counseling may increase empowerment regardless of personality dimensions and coping styles.

Models of communication for polygenic scores and associated psychosocial and behavioral effects on recipients: A systematic review

PURPOSE

This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs.

METHODS

Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021).

RESULTS

In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.

The effect of e-health interventions on meeting the needs of individuals with infertility: a narrative review

Background

The mental health and well-being of millions of people worldwide are negatively impacted by infertility. A promising solution to meet the needs of people suffering from infertility is e-health interventions, such as online counseling and support groups. This study aims to review the current literature on e-health interventions and how they impact people with infertility.

Main body of the abstract

Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Articles were entered into the EndNote software and screened for duplicates and relevance. Two authors then reviewed full-text articles independently, with a third person resolving any disagreements. Thirteen studies conducted between 2007 and 2022 were identified. The interventions aimed to meet various needs, including training on drug use (n = 23), lifestyle modifications (n = 1), periconceptional behavior modifications (n = 1), drug management (n = 1), IVF training (n = 4), psychological support to reduce distress (n = 4), and promoting a positive sexual self-concept (n = 1).

Short conclusion

The limited number of e-health interventions for infertile patients, the heterogeneity of interventions, and the lack of long-term effectiveness data make it challenging to compare e-health interventions to nonelectronic alternatives. However, the increasing use of technology in healthcare, especially during and after the Covid-19 pandemic, suggests that e-health educational interventions such as those using the Internet, psychological support, and patient interaction will continue to play a crucial role in healthcare.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43043-023-00137-7.

Measuring quality and value in genetic counseling: The current landscape and future directions

Genetic counselors strive to provide high-quality genetic services. To do so, it is essential to define quality in genetic counseling and identify opportunities for improvement. This Professional Issues article provides an overview of the evaluation of healthcare quality in genetic counseling. The National Society of Genetic Counselors' Research, Quality, and Outcomes Committee partnered with Discern Health, a value-based healthcare policy consulting firm, to develop a care continuum model of genetic counseling. Using the proposed model, currently available quality measures relevant to genetic counseling in the US healthcare system were assessed, allowing for the identification of gaps and priority areas for further development. A total of 560 quality measures were identified that can be applied to various aspects of the care continuum model across a range of clinical specialty areas in genetic counseling, although few measures were specific to genetic counseling or genetic conditions. Areas where quality measures were lacking included: attitudes toward genetic testing, family communication, stigma, and issues of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We discuss these findings and other strategies for an evidence-based approach to quality in genetic counseling. Strategic directions for the genetic counseling profession should include a consolidated approach to research on quality and value of genetic counseling, development of quality metrics and patient-experience measures, and engagement with other improvement activities. These strategies will allow for benchmarking, performance improvement, and future implementation in accountability programs which will strengthen genetic counseling as a profession that provides evidence-based high-quality care to all patients.

Characterization of Genetic Risk of End-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis Treated with Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Genome-Wide Association Study

BACKGROUND

End-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly debilitating disease for which total knee arthroplasty (TKA) serves as an effective treatment option. Although a genetic component to OA in general has been described, evaluation of the genetic contribution to end-stage OA of the knee is limited. To this end, we present a genome-wide association study involving patients undergoing TKA for primary knee OA to characterize the genetic features of severe disease on a population level.

METHODS

Individuals with the diagnosis of knee OA who underwent primary TKA were identified in the U.K. Biobank using administrative codes. The U.K. Biobank is a data repository containing prospectively collected clinical and genomic data for >500,000 patients. A genome-wide association analysis was performed using the REGENIE software package. Logistic regression was also used to compare the total genetic risk between subgroups stratified by age and body mass index (BMI).

RESULTS

A total of 16,032 patients with end-stage knee OA who underwent primary TKA were identified. Seven genetic loci were found to be significantly associated with end-stage knee OA. The odds ratio (OR) for developing end-stage knee OA attributable to genetics was 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10 to 1.14), which was lower than the OR associated with BMI (OR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.78 to 1.83) and age (OR = 2.38; 95% CI, 2.32 to 2.45). The magnitude of the OR for developing end-stage knee OA attributable to genetics was greater in patients <60 years old than in patients ≥60 years old (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

This population-level genome-wide association study of end-stage knee OA treated with primary TKA was notable for identifying multiple significant genetic variants. These loci involve genes responsible for cartilage development, cartilage homeostasis, cell signaling, and metabolism. Age and BMI appear to have a greater impact on the risk of developing end-stage disease compared with genetic factors. The genetic contribution to the development of severe disease is greater in younger patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Communicating Personal Melanoma Polygenic Risk Information: Participants’ Experiences of Genetic Counseling in a Community-Based Study

Personalized polygenic risk information may be used to guide risk-based melanoma prevention and early detection at a population scale, but research on communicating this information is limited. This mixed-methods study aimed to assess the acceptability of a genetic counselor (GC) phone call in communicating polygenic risk information in the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk randomized controlled trial. Participants (n = 509) received personalized melanoma polygenic risk information, an educational booklet on melanoma prevention, and a GC phone call, which was audio-recorded. Participants completed the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Survey 1-month after receiving their risk information (n = 346). A subgroup took part in a qualitative interview post-study completion (n = 20). Survey data were analyzed descriptively using SPSS, and thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using NVivo 12.0 software. The survey showed a high level of acceptability for the GC phone call (mean satisfaction score overall: 4.3 out of 5, standard deviation (SD): 0.6) with differences according to gender (mean score for women: 4.4, SD: 0.6 vs. men: 4.2, SD: 0.7; p = 0.005), health literacy (lower literacy: 4.1, SD: 0.8; average: 4.3, SD: 0.6; higher: 4.4, SD: 0.6: p = 0.02) and polygenic risk group (low risk: 4.5, SD: 0.5, SD: average: 4.3, SD: 0.7, high: 4.3, SD: 0.7; p = 0.03). During the GC phone calls, the discussion predominately related to the impact of past sun exposure on personal melanoma risk. Together our findings point to the importance of further exploring educational and support needs and preferences for communicating personalized melanoma risk among population subgroups, including diverse literacy levels.

Understanding the Patient Experience of Receiving Clinically Actionable Genetic Results from the MyCode Community Health Initiative, a Population-Based Genomic Screening Initiative

Understanding unselected individuals’ experiences receiving genetic results through population genomic screening is critical to advancing clinical utility and improving population health. We conducted qualitative interviews with individuals who received clinically actionable genetic results via the MyCode© Genomic Screening and Counseling program. We purposively sampled cohorts to seek diversity in result-related disease risk (e.g., cancer or cardiovascular) and in personal or family history of related diseases. Transcripts were analyzed using a two-step inductive coding process of broad thematic analysis followed by in-depth coding of each theme. Four thematic domains identified across all cohorts were examined: process assessment, psychosocial response, behavioral change due to the genetic result, and family communication. Coding of 63 interviews among 60 participants revealed that participants were satisfied with the results disclosure process, initially experienced a range of positive, neutral, and negative psychological reactions to results, adjusted positively to results over time, undertook clinically indicated actions in response to results, and communicated results with relatives to whom they felt emotionally close. Our findings of generally favorable responses to receiving clinically actionable genetic results via a genomic screening program may assuage fear of patient distress in such programs and guide additional biobanks, genomic screening programs, and research studies.

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.

The Clinical and Psychosocial Outcomes for Women Who Received Unexpected Clinically Actionable Germline Information Identified through Research: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Comparative Study

Background Research identifying and returning clinically actionable germline variants offer a new avenue of access to genetic information. The psychosocial and clinical outcomes for women who have received this ‘genome-first care’ delivering hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk information outside of clinical genetics services are unknown. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods case-control study compared outcomes between women who did (cases; group 1) and did not (controls; group 2) receive clinically actionable genetic information from a research cohort in Victoria, Australia. Participants completed an online survey examining cancer risk perception and worry, and group 1 also completed distress and adaptation measures. Group 1 participants subsequently completed a semi structured interview. Results: Forty-five participants (group 1) and 96 (group 2) completed the online survey, and 31 group 1 participants were interviewed. There were no demographic differences between groups 1 and 2, although more of group 1 participants had children (p = 0.03). Group 1 reported significantly higher breast cancer risk perception (p < 0.001) compared to group 2, and higher cancer worry than group 2 (p < 0.001). Some group 1 participants described how receiving their genetic information heightened their cancer risk perception and exacerbated their cancer worry while waiting for risk-reducing surgery. Group 1 participants reported a MICRA mean score of 27.4 (SD 11.8, range 9−56; possible range 0−95), and an adaptation score of 2.9 (SD = 1.1). Conclusion: There were no adverse psychological outcomes amongst women who received clinically actionable germline information through a model of ‘genome-first’ care compared to those who did not. These findings support the return of clinically actionable research results to research participants.

Managing Pandora's Box: Familial Expectations around the Return of (Future) Germline Results

BACKGROUND

Pediatric oncology patients are increasingly being offered germline testing to diagnose underlying cancer predispositions. Meanwhile, as understanding of variant pathogenicity evolves, planned reanalysis of genomic results has been suggested. Little is known regarding the types of genomic information that parents and their adolescent children with cancer prefer to receive at the time of testing or their expectations around the future return of genomic results.

METHODS

Parents and adolescent children with cancer eligible for genomic testing for cancer predisposition were surveyed regarding their attitudes and expectations for receiving current and future germline results (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02530658).

RESULTS

All parents (100%) desired to learn about results for treatable or preventable conditions, with 92.4% wanting results even when there is no treatment or prevention. Parents expressed less interest in receiving uncertain results for themselves (88.3%) than for their children (95.3%). Most parents (95.9%) and adolescents (87.9%) believed that providers have a responsibility to share new or updated germline results indefinitely or at any point during follow-up care. Fewer parents (67.5%) indicated that they would want results if their child was deceased: 10.3% would not want to be contacted, 19.3% were uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations for return of new or updated genomic results are high among pediatric oncology families, although up to one third of parents have reservations about receiving such information in the event of their child's death. These results underscore the importance of high-quality pre-and post-test counseling, conducted by individuals trained in consenting around genomic testing to elicit family preferences and align expectations around the return of germline results.

Genetic counseling access for parents of newborns who screen positive for cystic fibrosis: Consensus guidelines

INTRODUCTION

A risk associated with cystic fibrosis newborn screening (CFNBS) is parental misunderstanding of genetic information generated by the over 6600 positive screens reported annually in the United States. CFNBS algorithms incorporating DNA analysis can generate genetic information that requires clinical interpretation and has significance for the newborn, parents, and other relatives. Engagement between CF care centers and trained genetic counseling providers, such as licensed and/or certified genetic counselors (GCs), is variable and limited in providing information to CFNBS positive (CFNBS+) families.

METHODS

Using a modified Delphi process, a workgroup of CFNBS experts developed recommendation statements for engagement of genetic counseling services in CF care centers where CFNBS + diagnostic evaluations are performed. Statements were assessed over three rounds of surveys, one face-to-face meeting, and through public feedback.

RESULTS

Seventeen statements achieved >80% consensus (range: 82%-100%). The workgroup affirmed prior CFF policy statements recommending genetic counseling for parents of infants with CFNBS+. The remaining statements addressed infrastructure and logistics of genetic counseling services, including defining appropriate training for genetic counseling providers and counseling content, establishing a path to equal access to genetic counseling providers across CF care centers, and setting a standard for client-centered CFNBS genetic counseling that is respectful of diverse patient needs and autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of client-centered genetic counseling for CFNBS+ families in CF care centers by providers with expertise in both CF and genetic counseling will require efforts to further define core concepts, enhance the education of providers, and develop opportunities for access via telemedicine.

Families with complex needs: an inside perspective from young people, their carers, and healthcare providers

Complex health needs are demanding and often require additional medical, psychological and social support. All those involved (e.g., patients, carers, professionals) face a unique set of challenges and needs, especially in families where the patient is a child or a young person with a lifelong condition. The aim of the study was to explore carers' and young people's needs when living with long term conditions, as well as the views of the healthcare professionals supporting them. Semi-structured interviews with 30 participants (11 professionals, 10 parents, and 9 young people) were conducted. Interviews focused on 3 main areas-(1) medical needs, (2) psychological needs, and (3) communication needs-and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four main themes emerged: (1) Acceptance takes time refers to the often long and challenging process of adapting to the diagnosis and living with the condition; (2) Close guidance captures the importance of specialised and long term guidance in accessing and managing the complexities of the medical system; (3) Open communication shows the families' need to be collaboratively connected to healthcare providers and other families facing similar difficulties; and (4) Long-term support underlines the importance of long term formal and informal support strategies. The participants' experiences and views have provided us with insight and guidance for developing and implementing personalized and integrated services. This inside perspective is key for future research aimed at better understanding the impact of complex conditions and meaningful ways to support families throughout their journeys.

Systematic review of outcomes in studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening: Towards development of a core outcome set

PURPOSE

Current practice recommendations support the widespread implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). These consensus-based recommendations highlight a research gap, with findings from current studies being insufficient to meet the standard required for more rigorous evidence-based recommendations. This systematic review assessed methodological aspects of studies on RGCS to inform the need for a core outcome set.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify peer-reviewed published studies offering population-based RGCS. Study designs, outcomes, and measurement methods were extracted. A narrative synthesis was conducting using an existing outcome taxonomy and criteria used in the evaluation of genetic screening programs as frameworks.

RESULTS

Sixty-five publications were included. We extracted 120 outcomes representing 24 outcome domains. Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement methods and time points of assessment was extensive. Quality appraisal raised concerns for bias. We found that reported outcomes had limited applicability to criteria used to evaluate genetic screening programs.

CONCLUSION

Despite a large body of literature, diverse approaches to research have limited the conclusions that can be cumulatively drawn from this body of evidence. Consensus regarding meaningful outcomes for evaluation of RGCS would be a valuable first step in working towards evidence-based practice recommendations, supporting the development of a core outcome set.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

A new scale informed by the Reciprocal-Engagement Model for quality evaluation of genetic counselling by patients: Development and initial validation

Monitoring the quality of genetic counselling is essential to ensure appropriate provision. This study describes the development and initial psychometric validation of a novel scale for genetic counselling quality evaluation by patients. A deductive approach was taken to formulate scale items. Exploratory factor analysis with the principal axis factoring method was used to assess the scale's factor structure (n = 118). Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) was also examined. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a single overarching construct consisting of seven factors, which account for 59% of the variance explained. Items showed, in general, strong factor loadings (>0.5). Some items focused on patient satisfaction with services provision did not load onto the factors. Thus, another factor analysis was performed with these items, which resulted in one-factor. The identified factor accounted for 57% of variance explained, and communalities were strong (≥0.5) for most items. Cronbach's alpha score for the scale was 0.85, indicating high internal consistency. Factors were significantly and moderately interrelated (from r = 0.31 to r = 0.71). Further studies are needed to establish the psychometric validity of the scale.

Developing genetic counselling services in an underdeveloped healthcare setting

Genetic counselling services are well established in North America, Western Europe and Australia. In other regions, genetic counselling services are still emerging. Where this is the case, an in-depth understanding of the main stakeholders’ needs, challenges and opportunities will inform the changes and innovations required to bring genetic counselling closer to the community. The present study explored the needs and challenges of patients, family members and professionals with a view to setting up a cancer genetic counselling service in Romania. In order to get a comprehensive outlook, key stakeholders were interviewed using data source triangulation method. Thirty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted (13 patients, 11 family members and 10 professionals). Thematic analysis was used to explore and identify needs, barriers and opportunities in emerging cancer genetic counselling services. Three major themes were identified: (1) the “Needs” theme mainly focuses on various types of support that participants mentioned wanting: psychosocial, peer and additional support; (2) the “Challenges” theme includes aspects related to limited access to healthcare, lack of integrated services and pressure on the families; (3) the “Hopes” theme highlights the wish for integrated healthcare and an empathic rapport with healthcare providers. Our findings highlighted the main needs, challenges and hopes the patients, family members and professionals have and provides the groundwork for setting up cancer genetic counselling services.

The Core Outcome DEvelopment for Carrier Screening (CODECS) study: protocol for development of a core outcome set

Background

Reproductive genetic carrier screening is a type of genetic testing available to those planning a pregnancy, or during their first trimester, to understand their risk of having a child with a severe genetic condition. There is a lack of consensus for ‘what to measure’ in studies on this intervention, leading to heterogeneity in choice of outcomes and methods of measurement. Such outcome heterogeneity has implications for the quality and comparability of these studies and has led to a lack of robust research evidence in the literature to inform policy and decision-making around the offer of this screening. As reproductive genetic carrier screening becomes increasingly accessible within the general population, it is timely to investigate the outcomes of this intervention.

Objectives

The development of a core outcome set is an established methodology to address issues with outcome heterogeneity in research. We aim to develop a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening to clarify and standardise outcomes for research and practice.

Methods

In accordance with guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative, this study will consist of five steps: (i) a systematic review of quantitative studies, using narrative synthesis to identify previously reported outcomes, their definitions, and methods of measurement; (ii) a systematic review of qualitative studies using content analysis to identify excerpts related to patient experience and perspectives that can be interpreted as outcomes; (iii) semi-structured focus groups and interviews with patients who have undertaken reproductive genetic carrier screening to identify outcomes of importance to them; (iv) Delphi survey of key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, and researchers, to refine and prioritise the list of outcomes generated from the previous steps; and (v) a virtual consensus meeting with a purposive sample of key stakeholders to finalise the core outcome set for reporting.

Discussion

This protocol outlines the core outcome set development process and its novel application in the setting of genetic testing. This core outcome set will support the standardisation of outcome reporting in reproductive carrier screening research and contribute to an evolving literature on outcomes to evaluate genetic testing and genetic counselling as health interventions.

COMET core outcome set registration

http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1381.

Transitioning to telegenetics in the COVID-19 era: Patient satisfaction with remote genetic counseling in adult neurology

The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed genetic counseling services across the United States. At the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), a large academic hospital in an urban setting, nearly all genetic counseling (GC) visits for adult-onset disorders within the Department of Neurology were conducted via secure videoconferencing (telegenetics) or telephone between March and December 2020. Although telemedicine services have been steadily emerging, many clinical programs, including the neurogenetics program at UPenn, had not built infrastructure or widely utilized these services prior to the pandemic. Thus, little is known about patient attitudes toward receiving clinical GC services remotely. From May 18 to October 18, 2020, all individuals seen remotely for GC in adult neurology via telephone or telegenetics were surveyed about their satisfaction with telehealth GC (N = 142), with a response rate of 42% (N = 60/142). Telephone and telegenetics services were referred to as 'telehealth' in the surveys to capture patient perspectives on all remote GC services, though the majority (N = 49/60) of these visits were completed via telegenetics. Surveys included the modified telehealth usability questionnaire (MTUQ), genetic counseling satisfaction scale (GCSS), and novel questions about future telehealth use. Preliminary results suggest that patients were satisfied with receiving remote GC services in adult neurology, with most participants strongly agreeing to all items about satisfaction with telehealth. Just 2% of participants preferred only in-person visits in the future, but every participant was willing to consider using telehealth for future visits if their genetic counselor felt it was appropriate. Most participants preferred a hybrid model (73%), and some (25%) preferred only telehealth for future visits. Additionally, we found no differences in satisfaction with remote services based on visit type (initial vs. results disclosure) nor age. We conclude that remote GC is an acceptable method for the provision of services in adult neurology that is well-received by patients.

Genetic counselor experiences with telehealth before and after COVID-19

While genetic counselor (GC) utilization of telehealth has increased in recent years, the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic significantly accelerated the adoption of telehealth for many. We investigated GC experiences with telehealth including perceived advantages, disadvantages, and barriers using a one‐time online survey of GCs who provided direct patient care in recent years. The survey examined experiences with telehealth before and after the onset of COVID‐19. We made broad comparisons to findings from a similar study our research team conducted five years ago. GCs reported an increase in the utilization of telehealth over time, with significant increases from pre‐2017 (44%) to pre‐COVID‐19 (70%) and then to present (87%) (p<.001 and .02, respectively). There was no significant change in the total number of hours worked from pre‐COVID‐19 to the time of survey completion, nor were there significant changes in the amount of time spent on clinical responsibilities or interfacing with patients. However, the total number of hours worked in telehealth significantly increased (z = 5.05, p<.001) as did the percent of time spent interacting with patients via telehealth [t(72)=3.74, p<.001, d = 0.44]. Participants overwhelmingly preferred video (84%) over telephone; this differs from our previous survey where video was the preferred modality for 59% (p<.001). We utilized open‐ended questions to elicit reasons for modality preference. The most‐cited barrier to telehealth utilization was billing/reimbursement issues, with 39% noting this obstacle. This is consistent with our previous study where 30% cited billing/reimbursement as the primary barrier. These findings indicate a need for continued efforts to improve billing and reimbursement for genetic counseling offered via telehealth. They also present an opportunity for additional exploration regarding patient preferences for telehealth modality.

Development and early implementation of an Accessible, Relational, Inclusive and Actionable approach to genetic counseling: The ARIA model

OBJECTIVE

To describe the training and early implementation of the ARIA model of genetic counseling (Accessible, Relational, Inclusive, Actionable).

METHODS

As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, an interdisciplinary workgroup developed the ARIA curriculum and trained genetic counselors to return exome sequencing results using the ARIA model.

CURRICULUM

The ARIA curriculum includes didactic elements, discussion, readings, role plays, and observations of usual care genetic counseling sessions. The ARIA model provides the skills and strategies needed for genetic counseling to be accessible to all patients, regardless of prior knowledge or literacy level; involves appropriate psychological and social counseling without overwhelming the patient with information; and leaves the patient with clear and actionable next steps.

CONCLUSION

With sufficient training and practice, the ARIA model appears to be feasible, with promise for ensuring that genetic counselors' communication is accessible, relational, inclusive and actionable for the diverse patients participating in genomic medicine.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

ARIA offers a coherent set of principles and strategies for effective communication with patients of all literacy levels and outlines specific techniques to practice and incorporate these skills into routine practice. The ARIA model could be integrated into genetic counseling training programs and practice, making genetic counseling more accessible and meaningful for all patients.

Preferences for and acceptability of receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail: A focus group study with a primarily African-American cohort

Although genetic counseling is traditionally done through in-person, one-on-one visits, workforce shortages call for efficient result return mechanisms. Studies have shown that telephone and in-person return of cancer genetic results are equivalent for patient outcomes. Few studies have been conducted with other modes, result types or racially diverse participants. This study explored participants' perspectives on receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail. Two experienced moderators facilitated six focus groups with 49 individuals who self-identified primarily as African-American and consented to participate in a genome sequencing cohort study. Participants were given a hypothetical pharmacogenomic result report (positive for c.521T>C in SLCO1B1). An accompanying letter explained that the result was associated with statin intolerance along with a recommendation to share it with one's doctor and immediate relatives. Participants reacted to the idea of receiving this type of result by mail, discussing whether the letter's information was sufficient and what they predicted they would do with the result. Two researchers coded the focus group transcripts and identified themes. Many participants thought that it was appropriate to receive the result through the mail, but some suggested a phone call alerting the recipient to the letter. Others emphasized that although a letter was acceptable for disclosing pharmacogenomic results, it would be insufficient for what they perceived as life-threatening results. Most participants found the content sufficient. Some participants suggested resources about statin intolerance and warning signs be added. Most claimed they would share the result with their doctor, yet few participants offered they would share the result with their relatives. This exploratory study advances the evidence that African-American research participants are receptive to return of certain genetic results by approaches that do not involve direct contact with a genetic counselor and intend to share results with providers. ClinSeq: A Large-Scale Medical Sequencing Clinical Research Pilot Study (NCT00410241).

Effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to inform decision making and improve uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Inherited colorectal cancer syndromes increase the risk of contracting colorectal and other cancers. International guidelines recommend the identification of individuals with hereditary colorectal cancer and the supervision of asymptomatic individuals with a family history. However, detection of hereditary colorectal cancer is suboptimal. The prevalence of genetic counselling and testing for individuals with high genetic risk is low.

OBJECTIVE

To identify, characterize and summarize patient-targeted interventions on improving the uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals and enhancing their informed decision making.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane library) were searched to identify eligible clinical trials from each database's inception to March 25, 2020. The reference lists of the included studies and reviews were checked for additional articles.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were screened and independently appraised by two reviewers using the standardized critical appraisal checklist for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies from the Joanna Briggs Institute. The results were tabulated and reported in descriptive format.

RESULTS

Based on the inclusion criteria, 8 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included. The studies examined patient-targeted intervention strategies related to risk assessment, education, and decision aids. Outcomes included (1) informed decisions regarding microsatellite instability testing, (2) informed decisions concerning genetic testing, (3) genetic counselling and testing. Most of the included studies revealed that interventions had positive effects on the uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals and their informed decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few studies included in this review, and the results were inconsistent. Based on this review, the conclusion cannot be made that interventions for risk assessment, education, and decision aids have positive effects on the uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals and their informed decision making. However, to our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to summarize the effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to inform decision making and improve uptake of colorectal cancer genetic evaluation for at-risk individuals. This review provides important evidence for related topics. Future studies with rigorous designs are recommended. Nurses have a crucial role in personalized health care. The involvement of nurses in collaboration with all the stakeholders in the development, implementation and evaluation of cancer genetic screening programs to improve genetic referral of individual at risk.

Adaptation of the working alliance inventory for the assessment of the therapeutic alliance in genetic counseling

The concept of therapeutic alliance is central to genetic counseling as the mechanism through which the outcomes of empowerment and effective coping are likely to be achieved. To date, there have been no published systematic assessments of the therapeutic relationship in genetic counseling. We adapted a previously validated measure of the therapeutic alliance to genetic counseling and assessed its reliability and validity. Participants were enrolled in a clinical genomic study where they were randomized to receive education about carrier results via a Web platform or via a genetic counselor and then further randomized to receive genetic counseling (without additional education) or not. We rated the therapeutic alliance from audio recordings of 120 genetic counseling sessions. We modified the observer version of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-O), initially designed to assess therapeutic relationships in psychotherapy. We examined internal consistency reliability by calculating Cronbach's alpha and inter-rater reliability through both percent agreement and Gwet's alternative agreement coefficient (AC). Regression analyses were used to evaluate the relationship of WAI-O scores with session length and with the designation of the session as one in which prior education was delivered by the genetic counselor or not. The adapted scale had high-reliability characteristics with agreement of 88%-93%, Gwet's AC of 0.84-0.90, and Cronbach's alpha of 0.89-0.93 for the three WAI-O subscales (bonds, goals, and tasks). Although there was no difference in alliance based on whether prior education was provided by the genetic counselor, the total WAI-O score significantly increased with increasing session length (beta =0.667, p<.001), providing preliminary evidence of construct validity. The WAI-O that we have adapted can be used reliably with two independent raters to assess the therapeutic alliance in studies of genetic counseling. The initial evidence for construct validity is promising and should be reassessed in future genetic counseling studies using the WAI-O.

"Is that something that should concern me?": a qualitative exploration of parent understanding of their child's genomic test results

Genetic counselors are trained to deliver complicated genomic test results to parents of pediatric patients. However, there is limited knowledge on how parents perceive this information and what they understand about the results. This research aims to qualitatively explore parents’ experiences receiving genomic test results for their children. As part of formative research for the NYCKidSeq Study, we recruited a purposive sample of parents of 22 children stratified by child race/ethnicity and test result classification (positive, uncertain, or negative) and conducted in-depth interviews using a semi-structured guide. Analysis was conducted using grounded theory’s constant comparative method across cases and themes. Parents described different elements of understanding: genetics knowledge; significance and meaning of positive, uncertain, or negative results; and implications for the health of their child and family. Parents reported challenges understanding technical details and significance of their child’s results but gladly allowed their providers to be custodians of this information. However, of the different elements of understanding described, parents cared most deeply about being able to understand implications for their child’s and family’s health. These findings suggest that a counseling approach that primarily addresses parents’ desire to understand how to best care for their child and family may be more appropriate than an information-heavy approach focused on technical details. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings in larger parent cohorts and to explore ways genetic counseling can support parents’ preferences without sacrificing important components of parent understanding and overall satisfaction with their experiences with genomic medicine.

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it.

Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease

Advances in genetic diagnostics lead to more patients being diagnosed with hereditary conditions. These findings are often relevant to patients' relatives. For example, the success of targeted cancer prevention is dependent on effective disclosure to relatives at risk. Without clear information, individuals cannot take advantage of predictive testing and preventive measures. Against this background, we argue that healthcare professionals have a duty to make actionable genetic information available to their patients' at-risk relatives. We do not try to settle the difficult question of how this duty should be balanced against other duties, such as the duty of confidentiality and a possible duty not to know one's genetic predisposition. Instead, we argue for the importance of recognising a general responsibility towards at-risk relatives, to be discharged as well as possible within the limits set by conflicting duties and practical considerations. According to a traditional and still dominant perspective, it is the patient's duty to inform his or her relatives, while healthcare professionals are only obliged to support their patients in discharging this duty. We argue that this perspective is a mistake and an anomaly. Healthcare professionals do not have a duty to ensure that their patients promote the health of third parties. It is often effective and desirable to engage patients in disseminating information to their relatives. However, healthcare professionals should not thereby deflect their own moral responsibility.

A Delphi study to prioritize genetic counseling outcomes: What matters most

Research on genetic counseling outcomes has examined a range of metrics many that differ in quality and extent of psychometric assessment and in some cases fail to encompass potential benefits of genetic counseling for patients. Although a variety of possible outcomes have been explored, selecting the most important or relevant outcomes and identifying well-validated measures remain challenging. An online, modified Delphi method was used to prioritize genetic counseling outcomes from the viewpoint of individuals from four stakeholder groups - clinical genetic counselors, outcome researchers, genetic counseling training directors, and genetic counseling consumers/advocates. A survey of 181 genetic counseling outcomes were rated based on perceived importance and then sorted and categorized using the Framework for Outcomes of Clinical Communication Services in Genetic Counseling (FOCUS-GC) framework. Three of the FOCUS-GC domains (Process, Patient Care Experience, and Patient Changes) were assessed as most important, while none of the most highly rated outcomes fell into the domains of Patient Health or Family Changes. The majority of outcomes deemed most important by stakeholder groups were within the process domain. When looking at the proportion of outcomes that overlapped with the consumer group, clinical genetic counselors had the highest degree of similarity with consumers when looking at the high relative importance band outcomes (61.1% overlap), followed by training directors (58.3%), and outcome researchers (41.7%). Variability in importance according to stakeholder groups was an important consideration and prioritizing outcomes was challenging given that the majority of outcomes were rated as important. Working to bridge the realities of clinical care and fundamental differences in the viewpoints and priorities of genetic counseling research directions is an area for future exploration.

Evolving Roles of Genetic Counselors in the Clinical Laboratory

Genetic counselors (GCs) possess several core competencies that provide direct benefit in the clinical laboratory setting. Communication with clients about complex information such as test methodology or results and the skills of facilitation and translation of complex information were recognized as important skills early in the establishment of GCs in laboratories. The clinical expertise of GCs serves as the background and experience from which they facilitate complex laboratory cases. Early roles for GCs in the laboratory also included result reporting, case management, and test development. The scope of roles has broadened to include management, business development, education, telemedicine, research, and variant interpretation. With increasing value being placed on genetic counseling skills both in and outside of a clinical laboratory, the roles and positions of GCs will likely continue to expand.

Advancing the genetic counseling profession through research: Identification of priorities by the National Society of Genetic Counselors research task force

To help advance research critical to the achievement of the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) strategic objectives, coordination and prioritization of society resources are needed. NSGC convened a task force to advance research necessary for the achievement of our strategic objectives by reviewing existing society-supported research efforts identifying gaps in current research, and coordinating society resources, the task force was formed in order to coordinate and prioritize society resources to advance research critical to the achievement of our strategic objectives. The task force developed a research agenda outlining high-priority research questions for the next 5 years. The questions are organized into four domains: (a) Genetic Counseling Clients; (b) Genetic Counseling Process and Outcomes; (c) Value of Genetic Counseling Services; and (d) Access to Genetic Counseling Services. This framework can be used to advocate for research and funding priorities within NSGC and with other key research entities to stimulate the growth and advancement of the genetic counseling profession.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

Who we are, what we do, and how we add value: The role of the genetic counseling 'philosophy of practice' statement in a changing time

As genetics and genomics are integrated into health care and non-genetic health professionals deliver aspects of genetic counseling, it is increasingly important for genetic counselors to be able to define who we are, what we do, and how we add value to client interactions, both on an individual and professional basis. In this paper, we argue that to understand ourselves as individual practitioners and as a profession, we each need to reflect on, write, and constantly review our own philosophy of practice. A philosophy of practice is a dynamic, personal, and reflective statement or narrative that captures the core ideas, values, and beliefs of the individual about their chosen profession, including concrete examples of what this involves in practice. Here, we consider the nature, purpose, and relevance of a philosophy of genetic counseling practice, drawing on examples from professions such as teaching and nursing, where the exercise of writing a philosophy of practice is more established. We demonstrate how and why we have introduced writing a philosophy of practice into our Master of Genetic Counseling program at University of Technology Sydney and consider the possibilities for introducing such practice into professional registration or certification processes. Finally, we offer our own philosophy of genetic counseling practice as an example. As the roles and scope of practice for genetic counselors expand and diversify, it is increasingly important to understand, own, and retain our core values and principles as individual practitioners and as a profession. Ensuring client-centered practice remains at the heart of genetic health care is vital. We encourage all genetic counselors to write, publish, and share their philosophy of practice, adding to our collective professional identity in this time of change and opportunity.

Cancer Genetic Counseling-Current Practice and Future Challenges

Cancer genetic counseling practice is rapidly evolving, with services being provided in increasingly novel ways. Pretest counseling for cancer patients may be abbreviated from traditional models to cover the elements of informed consent in the broadest of strokes. Genetic testing may be ordered by a cancer genetics professional, oncology provider, or primary care provider. Increasingly, direct-to-consumer testing options are available and utilized by consumers anxious to take control of their genetic health. Finally, genetic information is being used to inform oncology care, from surgical decision-making to selection of chemotherapeutic agent. This review provides an overview of the current and evolving practice of cancer genetic counseling as well as opportunities and challenges for a wide variety of indications in both the adult and pediatric setting.

Cognitive and affective outcomes of genetic counselling in the Netherlands at group and individual level: a personalized approach seems necessary

We performed a large outcome study at group and individual level in which the goals of genetic counselling were operationalized into cognitive and affective outcomes: empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety. We then examined which socio-demographic and clinical variables were associated with changes in these outcomes. Data came from 1479 counselees who completed questionnaires (GCOS-18, PPC and STAI) at three time points: before the start of genetic counselling, after the first consultation and after the results of genetic counselling were disclosed. Results showed that at group level empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety improved significantly after the whole genetic counselling process. Effect-sizes were medium for empowerment and small for the other outcomes. At individual level, 48% of counselees improved in empowerment, 21% in perceived personal control and 17% in anxiety. Around 10% of counselees worsened on all outcomes. Only ‘reason for referral’ and ‘genetic test result’ were significantly associated with changes in outcomes. This study demonstrated improvements among counselees in cognitive and affective outcomes after genetic counselling at group level. However, our results also suggest that there are opportunities for improvement at individual level, as many counselees remained stable and some even worsened on all outcomes. Routine outcome monitoring could help to explore the needs of counselees and could help to identify counselees who worsen.

Germline and Somatic Tumor Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations on genetic and tumor testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer based on available evidence and expert consensus.

METHODS

A literature search and prospectively defined study selection criteria sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and comparative observational studies published from 2007 through 2019. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 19 eligible studies. The evidence consisted of systematic reviews of observational data, consensus guidelines, and RCTs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

All women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer should have germline genetic testing for BRCA1/2 and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. In women who do not carry a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants should be performed. Women with identified germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 genes should be offered treatments that are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in the upfront and the recurrent setting. Women diagnosed with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous ovarian cancer should be offered somatic tumor testing for mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). Women with identified dMMR should be offered FDA-approved treatment based on these results. Genetic evaluations should be conducted in conjunction with health care providers familiar with the diagnosis and management of hereditary cancer. First- or second-degree blood relatives of a patient with ovarian cancer with a known germline pathogenic cancer susceptibility gene variant should be offered individualized genetic risk evaluation, counseling, and genetic testing. Clinical decision making should not be made based on a variant of uncertain significance. Women with epithelial ovarian cancer should have testing at the time of diagnosis.

Racial and ethnic differences in genetic counseling experiences and outcomes in the United States: A systematic review

As genetic counseling services expand and reach a wider catchment of the population, there is a critical need to better understand the impact of services on a greater diversity of patients. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate genetic counseling experiences and outcomes among racial and ethnic minorities. Six databases extracted articles published from 2005 to 2019 that assessed genetic counseling participation, knowledge and awareness, motivators, barriers, perceptions, and outcomes for racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States. Genetic counseling outcomes were categorized using the Framework for Outcomes of Clinical commUnication Services. A total of 1,227 abstracts were identified, of which 23 papers met inclusion criteria. Results suggest the possibility of racial and ethnic differences in some genetic counseling experiences and outcomes but noted differences were not adequately replicated between studies. The few included studies differed greatly in aims, methods, and results, which made comparison across study designs challenging and effectively barred thematic analysis. Additional research is needed that includes more study populations and settings with patients of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, as well as more structured study designs that allow for elucidations of differences between White and non-White populations.

Genetic Counseling and the Central Tenets of Practice

Genetic counseling is a profession growing and evolving at an extraordinary rate. This growth is driven by an explosion in what we know, as a result of progress in science, technology, and bioinformatics, and an explosion in what we do not know, as we strive to understand the impact of genomic information on the lives of our patients and clients. Genetic counselors work in an increasing number of subspecialties and diversity of settings. But although the field has evolved, it has maintained a remarkably unchanged core of shared values and beliefs. The heart of genetic counseling practice is the therapeutic relationship, with its dual role of providing information and facilitating assimilation of that information to personalize health-related decision-making and foster successful adaptation. Genetic counseling aims to communicate cutting-edge genomic science within an empathic understanding of the client/patient's concerns and needs. In pursuit of these goals, further assessment of genetic counseling's effectiveness is needed to facilitate evidence-based practices and to scale counseling resources.

Genetic counselors as social and behavioral scientists in the era of precision medicine

In the era of precision medicine, translating genomics into clinical care will involve answering key questions in social and behavioral research. The scope of this research addresses assessing how clients perceive and use genomic information, and how effectively genetic counseling is meeting clients' needs. Outcomes are central to enhancing practice effectiveness, improving patient outcomes, and informing cost effective services to address workforce challenges. While genetic counseling is generally thought of as a clinical practice, genetic counselors contribute to research in several ways. Counselors are actively involved in interpretation of sequence data, collaborate in clinical research teams, and serve as lead investigators. This commentary highlights genetic counselors as social and behavioral scientists and reviews evidence generated by genetic counselors, describes advanced training in research, and posits key social and behavioral research questions for genetic counseling in translating genomic science in the era of precision medicine.

Early Check: translational science at the intersection of public health and newborn screening

Background

Newborn screening (NBS) occupies a unique space at the intersection of translational science and public health. As the only truly population-based public health program in the United States, NBS offers the promise of making the successes of translational medicine available to every infant with a rare disorder that is difficult to diagnose clinically, but for which strong evidence indicates that presymptomatic treatment will substantially improve outcomes. Realistic NBS policy requires data, but rare disorders face a special challenge: Screening cannot be done without supportive data, but adequate data cannot be collected in the absence of large-scale screening. The magnitude and scale of research to provide this expanse of data require working with public health programs, but most do not have the resources or mandate to conduct research.

Methods

To address this gap, we have established Early Check, a research program in partnership with a state NBS program. Early Check provides the infrastructure needed to identify conditions for which there have been significant advances in treatment potential, but require a large-scale, population-based study to test benefits and risks, demonstrate feasibility, and inform NBS policy.

Discussion

Our goal is to prove the benefits of a program that can, when compared with current models, accelerate understanding of diseases and treatments, reduce the time needed to consider inclusion of appropriate conditions in the standard NBS panel, and accelerate future research on new NBS conditions, including clinical trials for investigational interventions.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov registration #NCT03655223. Registered on August 31, 2018.

Psychological outcomes related to exome and genome sequencing result disclosure: a meta-analysis of seven Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium studies

PURPOSE

As exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) enters the clinic, there is an urgent need to understand the psychological effects of test result disclosure. Through a Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER), phase 1 (CSER1) Consortium collaboration, we evaluated participants' psychological outcomes across multiple clinical settings.

METHODS

We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of state anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]/Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item), depressive symptoms (HADS/Personal Health Questionnaire 9-item), and multidimensional impact (i.e., test-related distress, uncertainty and positive impact: modified Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment/Feelings About Genomic Testing Results scale).

RESULTS

Anxiety and depression did not increase significantly following test result disclosure. Meta-analyses examining mean differences from pre- to postdisclosure revealed an overall trend for a decrease in participants' anxiety. We observed low levels of test-related distress and perceptions of uncertainty in some populations (e.g., pediatric patients) and a wide range of positive responses.

CONCLUSION

Our findings across multiple clinical settings suggest no clinically significant psychological harms from the return of ES/GS results. Some populations may experience low levels of test-related distress or greater positive psychological effects. Future research should further investigate the reasons for test-related psychological response variation.