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

A balancing act: Non-directive communication, risk perceptions, and meeting patient needs in genetic counseling: A South African case study

Genetic counseling (GC) traditionally follows a non-directive counseling approach. Although a cornerstone of GC teaching and theory, there has been debate on whether GC is, can be, or should be a patient-led service due to challenges in practice, as well as the advancement and complexity of genetic testing. Personal risk perceptions and patient expectations within particular contexts may further affect how genetic counselors discuss risk information, even while attempting to remain neutral. Less is known about the process of GC communication in non-Western settings. This paper presents empirical evidence from a South African prenatal GC consultation where tensions become apparent due to differing risk perceptions and expectations between a genetic counselor and a patient, which ultimately impacts non-directive communication practice. The case study forms part of a larger qualitative study focusing on risk and uncertainty communication within GC consultations in Cape Town, South Africa. A blended sociolinguistic approach drawing on principles of conversation analysis (CA) and theme-orientated discourse analysis (TODA) provides evidence of the complexity of imparting risk information and challenging patients to reflect on their decision-making, whilst refraining from sharing personal risk perceptions during everyday practice. The case study demonstrates how a genetic counselor may become implicitly and explicitly directive in their communication approach within the same consult which may reveal their personal risk perceptions on the matter discussed. In addition, the case study reveals how a genetic counselor may grapple with the dilemma of honoring the non-directive guidelines of the profession, whilst simultaneously supporting a patient who requests advice. The ongoing debate on non-directive counseling, decision-making, and patient care in GC is important for the reflection and development of the profession to understand how to assist and support patients facing sensitive and difficult decisions, in a meaningful, and contextually-tailored manner.

Beyond multiple choice: Clinical simulation as a rigorous and inclusive method for assessing genetic counseling competencies

Educational use of clinical simulation is a way for students to immerse themselves within a realistic yet safe and structured environment as they practice clinical skills. It is widely used in healthcare training and evaluation, and there are best practices for design, implementation, debriefing, and assessment. An increasing number of genetic counseling graduate programs use simulation in various ways, ranging from role-plays to working with professional simulated/standardized patient (SP) actors. At this time, there is very little consistency across programs, research on the approaches, and standards by which simulation is incorporated into training. Simulation is an understudied but promising approach for genetic counselor (GC) education and assessment. After graduation, GCs demonstrate their competence as entry-level providers through American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) multiple-choice examination (MCE), along with their participatory clinical encounters from graduate training. Data from genetic counseling and other professions highlight the limitations and biases of MCEs, suggesting they not only fail to accurately capture competency, but also that they disadvantage underrepresented individuals from entering the field. In addition, MCEs are limited as a tool for assessing nuanced counseling and communication skills, as compared to more quantitative scientific knowledge. We propose that innovative, evidence-based approaches such as simulation have the potential to not only enhance learning, but also to allow GCs to better demonstrate competency during training and in relation to the board examination. Collaborative approaches, research, and funding are needed to further explore the viability of routinely incorporating simulation into GC training and assessment.

"I am not a number!" Opinions and preferences of people with intellectual disability about genetic healthcare

There is limited research exploring the knowledge and experiences of genetic healthcare from the perspective of people with intellectual disability. This study, conducted in New South Wales (Australia), addresses this gap. Eighteen adults with intellectual disability and eight support people were interviewed in this inclusive research study. The transcribed interviews were analysed using inductive content analysis. The findings were discussed in a focus group with ten adults with intellectual disability and in three multi-stakeholder advisory workshops, contributing to the validity and trustworthiness of the findings. Five main themes emerged: (i) access to genetic healthcare services is inequitable, with several barriers to the informed consent process; (ii) the experiences and opinions of people with intellectual disability are variable, including frustration, exclusion and fear; (iii) genetic counselling and diagnoses can be profoundly impactful, but translating a genetic diagnosis into tailored healthcare, appropriate support, peer connections and reproductive planning faces barriers; (iv) people with intellectual disability have a high incidence of exposure to trauma and some reported that their genetic healthcare experiences were associated with further trauma; (v) recommendations for a more respectful and inclusive model of genetic healthcare. Co-designed point-of-care educational and consent resources, accompanied by tailored professional education for healthcare providers, are required to improve the equity and appropriateness of genetic healthcare for people with intellectual disability.

Efficacy of an online communication skill training intervention on genetic counseling students' performance during standardized patient sessions

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of a brief, online intervention designed to enhance genetic counseling students' patient-centered communication.

METHODS

Genetic counseling students and recent graduates were randomized to two groups following a baseline standardized patient (SP) session: (1) immediate intervention exposure, which consisted of five modules that taught patient-centered communication skills followed by a second SP session, or (2) delayed intervention exposure following completion of the second session. Sessions were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Short-term efficacy was assessed by comparing communication during the second session between the delayed and immediate intervention exposure groups. Longer-term efficacy was assessed by comparing communication during a third session approximately five weeks later.

RESULTS

During the second session, students in the immediate intervention exposure group (n = 18) used more emotionally responsive statements and were more likely to use teach-back than those in the delayed intervention exposure group (n = 23). Students' emotionally responsive statements decreased among the immediate intervention exposure group during the third session.

CONCLUSION

Exposure to the intervention was associated with multiple, positive changes to students' patient-centered communication behavior.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These time- and resource-efficient modules may be beneficial as an introduction to communication skills training or a supplement to existing training.

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

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

A qualitative study of unaffected ATM and CHEK2 carriers: How participants make meaning of 'moderate risk' genetic results in a population breast cancer screening trial

Relatively little is known about experiences of individuals with a pathogenic variant in a moderately penetrant breast cancer gene, particularly those without a personal history of cancer. The WISDOM trial is testing a model of risk-based breast cancer screening that integrates genomic (nine genes and polygenic risk) and other risk factors. In the context of an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study of WISDOM, we conducted qualitative interviews at two timepoints post-result disclosure with 22 ATM and CHEK2 carriers. Results disclosure and interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a grounded theory analysis framework. We found that participants minimized the significance of their results in comparison to BRCA; were surprised but not alarmed by the results in the absence of family history; did not fundamentally change their perception of their breast cancer risk despite the new genomic information; exhibited variable responses to WISDOM's screening and risk reduction recommendations; and shared test results with family but did not strongly encourage cascade testing. Participants viewed the results as having limited utility and responded accordingly. Our study offers important insights into how genetic test results for moderate-risk genes are received, understood, and acted upon in population screening context.

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.

Laboratory-related outcomes from integrating an accessible delivery model for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in populations with barriers to access

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the laboratory-related outcomes of participants who were offered genomic testing based on cancer family history risk assessment tools.

METHODS

Patients from clinics that serve populations with access barriers, who are screened at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome based on adapted family history collection tools (the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool and PREMM₅), were offered exome-based panel testing for cancer risk and medically actionable secondary findings. We used descriptive statistics, electronic health record review, and inferential statistics to explore participant characteristics and results, consultations and actions related to pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified, and variables predicting category of findings, respectively.

RESULTS

Of all the participants, 87% successfully returned a saliva kit. Overall, 5% had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic cancer risk variant and 1% had a secondary finding. Almost all (14/15, 93%) participants completed recommended consultations with nongenetics providers after an average of 17 months. The recommended actions (eg, breast magnetic resonance imaging) were completed by 17 of 25 participants. Participant personal history of cancer and PREMM₅ score were each associated with the category of findings (history and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .02; history and breast cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .01; PREMM₅^TM score; and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This accessible model of hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing yielded results that were often acted upon by patients and physicians.

Development and evaluation of an exome sequencing training course for medical interpreters

Aim: As genomic medicine reaches more diverse populations, there is an increased need for healthcare interpreters who understand and can effectively interpret genomics concepts. Methods: We designed a course for healthcare interpreters on exome sequencing to enhance their preparedness for genomic results disclosure appointments in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study and beyond. The course was evaluated via pre/post surveys and qualitative interviews. Results: 23 interpreters completed the course; 87% rated it as excellent/very good. Improved pre/post confidence interpreting for genetics appointments was statistically significant; pre/post knowledge was not. Interviews highlighted the need for more discussion time. Conclusion: While the course increased confidence interpreting for exome sequencing results appointments, suggested modifications could enhance knowledge and retention of key concepts.

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium

Introduction:

Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of “access to genomic medicine” is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking.

Methods:

Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them.

Results:

CSER’s enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies.

Conclusions:

Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

Genomic Sequencing Results Disclosure in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations: Themes, Challenges, and Strategies from the CSER Consortium

Genomic sequencing results need to be effectively communicated across all populations and practice settings. Projects in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium enroll diverse racial/ethnic and medically underserved participants across various clinical contexts. This article explores a set of CSER results disclosure cases to expand the evidence base on experiences returning genomic results. Case details were collected using a structured set of questions. We identified common themes in the case set, and assessed challenges and strategies in achieving six relevant results disclosure objectives. CSER-affiliated patient/community stakeholder impressions of the findings were solicited via video conference calls. Seventeen cases across six CSER projects were included. Case themes sorted into four categories: (1) factors influencing participant understanding, (2) participant emotional response, (3) disease burden, and (4) logistical challenges. Challenges meeting results disclosure objectives included a lack of dialogue, health literacy level, unexpected findings, and complex concepts. Strategies were consistent with traditional genetic counseling practice, but also highlighted approaches being evaluated in CSER projects. Patient/community stakeholders supported the identified themes and provided additional suggestions to improve patient understanding and engagement. These experiences add valuable insights into adapting genomic results disclosure practices to best serve all patient populations.