"They're Not Going to Do Nothing for Me": Research Participants' Attitudes towards Elective Genetic Counseling

Evaluation of mailed results versus telephone disclosure of normal cancer genetic test results in a low-risk underserved population

Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery.

Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.

Improving Uptake of Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment in a Remote Tailored Risk Communication and Navigation Intervention: Large Effect Size but Room to Grow

PURPOSE

Cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) is recommended for women with ovarian cancer or high-risk breast cancer, yet fewer than 30% receive recommended genetic services, with the lowest rates among underserved populations. We hypothesized that compared with usual care (UC) and mailed targeted print (TP) education, CGRA uptake would be highest among women receiving a phone-based tailored risk counseling and navigation intervention (TCN).

METHODS

In this three-arm randomized trial, women with ovarian or high-risk breast cancer were recruited from statewide cancer registries in Colorado, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Participants assigned to TP received a mailed educational brochure. Participants assigned to TCN received the mailed educational brochure, an initial phone-based psychoeducational session with a health coach, a follow-up letter, and a follow-up navigation phone call.

RESULTS

Participants' average age was 61 years, 25.4% identified as Hispanic, 5.9% identified as non-Hispanic Black, and 17.5% lived in rural areas. At 6 months, more women in TCN received CGRA (18.7%) than those in TP (3%; odds ratio, 7.4; 95% CI, 3.0 to 18.3; P < .0001) or UC (2.5%; odds ratio, 8.9; 95% CI, 3.4 to 23.5; P < .0001). There were no significant differences in CGRA uptake between TP and UC. Commonly cited barriers to genetic counseling were lack of provider referral (33.7%) and cost (26.5%), whereas anticipated difficulty coping with test results (14.0%) and cost (41.2%) were barriers for genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

TCN increased CGRA uptake in a group of geographically and ethnically diverse high-risk breast and ovarian cancer survivors. Remote personalized interventions that incorporate evidence-based health communication and behavior change strategies may increase CGRA among women recruited from statewide cancer registries.