Improving comprehension of genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer clients with a visual tool

Picture this: Evaluating the efficacy of genetic counseling visual aids

Visual aids have been validated as effective tools for educating patients in a variety of medical settings. However, research exploring the efficacy and potential benefit of genetic counseling visual aids is lacking. To begin to address this gap, this study assessed participant knowledge of genetic counseling concepts after viewing either visual or non-visual educational content. Participants were recruited from the general population using the crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were carried out to evaluate differences in knowledge survey scores between the visual and non-visual groups, and Poisson regression models were fitted to evaluate these differences across a variety of demographic backgrounds. The visual group had equal or higher scores than the non-visual group across all analyses. The difference in group scores was statistically significant for autosomal recessive inheritance knowledge scores (p < 0.05). In addition, this difference was approaching significance for higher-level knowledge scores (p = 0.05) and total knowledge scores in individuals who have not completed post-secondary education (p = 0.05). These results indicate that visual aids improve knowledge of specific genetic counseling concepts such as inheritance patterns; the education of which is often integral to genetic counseling. These results also indicate that visual aids may facilitate a deeper understanding of genetic counseling concepts and may be particularly valuable for individuals with lower educational backgrounds. Together, the results of this study support the inclusion of visual aids in genetic counseling education to help improve patient understanding and the accessibility of genetic healthcare information.

Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer

Objective

Evaluate an intervention to increase family communication (FC) of positive hereditary cancer test results using the Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions (FDECI).

Methods

We developed 'programme theory' during the FDECI development phase by aligning intervention components with behavior change techniques (BCTs) and theoretical factors expected to improve FC. During the feasibility phase, we obtained feedback from 12 stakeholder interviews.

Results

Intervention components aligned with a total of 14 unique BCTs for which prior evidence links the BCT to theoretical factors that influence behavior change. Constructive stakeholder feedback included: more information desired, rewording to support autonomy by highlighting options, and improvements to navigation, visuals, and audio. Positive comments included: comprehensiveness of materials, modeling of conversations, and usefulness of the materials for helping a person prepare to share positive test results.

Conclusion

The first FDECI phases were helpful for improving the intervention and planning our ongoing effectiveness and future implementation phases.

Innovation

Our application of the FDECI is novel, including plans to test our 'programme theory' using coincidence analysis (CNA) to determine who accesses which intervention materials, how utilizing certain materials impact the aligned theoretical factors, and whether these in turn make a difference in the behavioral outcome.

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.

Patient decision support resources inform decisions about cancer susceptibility genetic testing and risk management: a systematic review of patient impact and experience

Background

Patients with genetic cancer susceptibility are presented with complex management options involving difficult decisions, for example about genetic testing, treatment, screening and risk-reducing surgery/medications. This review sought to explore the experience of patients using decision support resources in this context, and the impact on decision-making outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies involving adults with or without cancer who used a decision support resource pre- or post-genetic test for any cancer susceptibility. To gather a broad view of existing resources and gaps for development, digital or paper-based patient resources were included and not limited to decision aids. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise patient impact and experience.

Results

Thirty-six publications describing 27 resources were included. Heterogeneity of resources and outcome measurements highlighted the multiple modes of resource delivery and personal tailoring acceptable to and valued by patients. Impact on cognitive, emotional, and behavioural outcomes was mixed, but mainly positive. Findings suggested clear potential for quality patient-facing resources to be acceptable and useful.

Conclusions

Decision support resources about genetic cancer susceptibility are likely useful to support decision-making, but should be co-designed with patients according to evidence-based frameworks. More research is needed to study impact and outcomes, particularly in terms of longer term follow-up to identify whether patients follow through on decisions and whether any increased distress is transient. Innovative, streamlined resources are needed to scale up delivery of genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer in mainstream oncology clinics. Tailored patient-facing decision aids should also be made available to patients identified as carriers of a pathogenic gene variant that increases future cancer risks, to complement traditional genetic counselling.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020220460, identifier: CRD42020220460.

The TeleKidSeq pilot study: incorporating telehealth into clinical care of children from diverse backgrounds undergoing whole genome sequencing

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic forced healthcare institutions and many clinical research programs to adopt telehealth modalities in order to mitigate viral spread. With the expanded use of telehealth, there is the potential to increase access to genomic medicine to medically underserved populations, yet little is known about how best to communicate genomic results via telehealth while also ensuring equitable access. NYCKidSeq, a multi-institutional clinical genomics research program in New York City, launched the TeleKidSeq pilot study to assess alternative forms of genomic communication and telehealth service delivery models with families from medically underserved populations.

METHODS

We aim to enroll 496 participants between 0 and 21 years old to receive clinical genome sequencing. These individuals have a neurologic, cardiovascular, and/or immunologic disease. Participants will be English- or Spanish-speaking and predominantly from underrepresented groups who receive care in the New York metropolitan area. Prior to enrollment, participants will be randomized to either genetic counseling via videoconferencing with screen-sharing or genetic counseling via videoconferencing without screen-sharing. Using surveys administered at baseline, results disclosure, and 6-months post-results disclosure, we will evaluate the impact of the use of screen-sharing on participant understanding, satisfaction, and uptake of medical recommendations, as well as the psychological and socioeconomic implications of obtaining genome sequencing. Clinical utility, cost, and diagnostic yield of genome sequencing will also be assessed.

DISCUSSION

The TeleKidSeq pilot study will contribute to innovations in communicating genomic test results to diverse populations through telehealth technology. In conjunction with NYCKidSeq, this work will inform best practices for the implementation of genomic medicine in diverse, English- and Spanish-speaking populations.

Making BRCA1 genetic test reports easier to understand through user-centered design: A randomized trial

PURPOSE

Our objective was to apply a user-centered design process to identify phrases, graphics, and ways of communicating numerical risks that could be used to help patients understand their cancer risk and next steps on receiving BRCA1 genetic test results (positive, negative, and variants of uncertain significance).

METHODS

The first phase of the study, a user-centered design process, consisted of 4 rounds of interviews (N = 42, including 13 health care professionals and 16 patients having undergone BRCA testing). The second was a randomized, between-participants experimental study of 456 United Kingdom residents that compared the resulting reports to reports used in a United Kingdom national genomic laboratory hub. Outcomes were subjective and objective comprehension, communication efficacy, actionability, and perceived risk.

RESULTS

Subjective comprehension, communication efficacy, and actionability were all higher for the user-centered reports, with no difference in perceived risk. Comprehension of participants viewing user-centered reports was significantly better on 2 items, directionally (but not significantly) better on 6 items, and directionally (but not significantly) worse on 2 items.

CONCLUSION

Our results imply that user-centered design is a promising approach for developing materials about complex genetic risks. We suggest wordings that are likely to lead to improved comprehension when communicating BRCA-associated risks.

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.

Feasibility and Assessment of a Cascade Traceback Screening Program (FACTS): Protocol for a Multisite Study to Implement and Assess an Ovarian Cancer Traceback Cascade Testing Program

Ovarian cancer (OVCA) patients may carry genes conferring cancer risk to biological family; however, fewer than one-quarter of patients receive genetic testing. “Traceback” cascade testing —outreach to potential probands and relatives—is a possible solution. This paper outlines a funded study (U01 CA240747-01A1) seeking to determine a Traceback program’s feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and costs. This is a multisite prospective observational feasibility study across three integrated health systems. Informed by the Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, we will outline, implement, and evaluate the outcomes of an OVCA Traceback program. We will use standard legal research methodology to review genetic privacy statutes; engage key stakeholders in qualitative interviews to design communication strategies; employ descriptive statistics and regression analyses to evaluate the site differences in genetic testing and the OVCA Traceback testing; and assess program outcomes at the proband, family member, provider, system, and population levels. This study aims to determine a Traceback program’s feasibility and acceptability in a real-world context. It will account for the myriad factors affecting implementation, including legal issues, organizational- and individual-level barriers and facilitators, communication issues, and program costs. Project results will inform how health care providers and systems can develop effective, practical, and sustainable Traceback programs.

Knowledge and psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing among individuals with ovarian cancer

In a sample of individuals with ovarian cancer, we aimed to (a) identify factors associated with the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing, (b) identify factors associated with cancer genetics knowledge, and (c) summarize patient-reported recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing process. Eligible participants in this secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative survey data were English-speaking adults with ovarian cancer. Psychosocial impact was assessed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Knowledge of cancer genetics was assessed using the KnowGene scale. Significant predictors of MICRA and KnowGene scores were identified using multiple regression. Open-ended survey item responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Eighty-seven participants met eligibility criteria. A positive genetic test result was associated with greater adverse psychosocial impact (B = 1.13, p = 0.002). Older age (B = - 0.07, p = 0.044) and being a member of a minority racial or ethnic group (B = - 3.075, p = 0.033) were associated with lower knowledge, while a personal history of at least one other type of cancer (B = 1.975, p = 0.015) was associated with higher knowledge. In open-ended item responses, participants wanted clinicians to assist with family communication, improve result disclosure, and enhance patient and family understanding of results. A subset of individuals with ovarian cancer who receive a positive genetic test result may be at risk for adverse psychosocial outcomes. Tailored cancer genetics education is necessary to promote the equitable uptake of targeted ovarian cancer treatment and risk-reducing therapies. Interventions to enhance patient-clinician communication in this setting are a research priority.