Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.     

Using Alzheimer's disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics

Susceptibility testing for common, complex adult-onset diseases is projected to become more commonplace as the rapid pace of genomic discoveries continues, and evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of such testing is needed to inform medical practice and health policy. Apolipoprotein E (APOE) testing for risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) provides a paradigm in which to examine the process and impact of disclosing genetic susceptibility for a prevalent, severe and incurable neurological condition. This review summarizes findings from a series of multi-site randomized clinical trials examining psychological and behavioral responses to various methods of genetic risk assessment for AD using APOE disclosure. We discuss challenges involved in disease risk estimation and communication and the extent to which participants comprehend and perceive utility in their genetic risk information. Findings on the psychological impact of test results are presented (e.g. distress), along with data on participants' health behavior and insurance purchasing responses (e.g. long-term care). Finally, we report comparisons of the safety and efficacy of intensive genetic counseling approaches to briefer models that emphasize streamlined processes and educational materials. The implications of these findings for the emerging field of personal genomics are discussed, with directions identified for future research.     

患者的保密权和隐私权

在医疗中医务人员获得的有关患者的私人信息必须被看作是机密性的。为患者保守秘密和尊重患者的隐私是医疗工作中一个重要的伦理学原则,也是医生的传统义务。本文还讨论了不当泄密以及保密的合理例外等情况。     

GeneTests-GeneClinics: genetic testing information for a growing audience

The development and usage of two companion NIH-funded genetic testing information databases, GeneTests (www.genetests.org) and GeneClinics (www.geneclinics.org), now merged into one web site, reflect the steadily increasing use of genetic testing and the expanding audience for genetic testing information. Established in 1993 as Helix, a genetics laboratory directory of approximately 110 listings, GeneTests has grown into a database of over 900 tests for inherited diseases, a directory of over 500 international laboratories, a directory of over 1,000 U.S. and international genetics clinics, and a resource for educational/teaching materials and reports of summary genetic test data. GeneClinics, founded in 1997 as an expert-authored, peer-reviewed, disease-specific knowledge base relating genetic testing to patient care, has grown steadily, now containing over 130 expert-authored, peer-reviewed full-text entries relating genetic testing information to diagnosis, management, and genetic counseling of specific inherited diseases. In spring 2001 the two databases were merged and in October 2001 the two web sites were merged for the purpose of seamless navigation into the GeneTests-GeneClinics site (www.genetests.org or www.geneclinics.org); the GeneClinics knowledge base was renamed "GeneReviews" to avoid confusion with the U.S. and international clinic directories. As genetic testing has moved steadily out of research venues and into routine medical practice, the user audience for these databases has become international and expansive and includes healthcare providers, patients, educators, policy makers, and the media. The use of these combined resources has grown to approximately 3,200 visits/day.     

The duty to warn at‐risk relatives—The experience of genetic counselors and medical geneticists

Studies published over 15 years ago surveyed genetic counselors (GC) and medical geneticists (MG) to examine their clinical experiences with the conflict of “duty to warn” versus patient confidentiality. Federal and state laws pertaining to medical professionals' duty to warn have since been implemented following the publications of these studies. Using a merged version of surveys employed in the prior studies, this study seeks to understand clinicians' current decision‐making process when faced with patient refusal to inform at‐risk relatives, as well as their familiarity with and opinions of laws and guidelines covering this issue. Consistent with the previous studies, the majority of MG and almost half of GC experience patient refusal. Significantly, fewer MG and GC believe they had a duty to warn their patients' relatives of genetic risk. Only 8% of participants believe current guidelines effectively address the issue of duty to warn. Participant awareness of federal or state laws regulating the disclosure of genetic information remains low. The conflict of duty to warn remains a shared experience among genetics professionals, and resources are needed to facilitate informed decision‐making. Participants' opinions of current policies and clinical decisions may guide professional actions regarding duty to warn.     

Attitudinal concordance toward uptake and disclosure of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in patient–family member dyads

Decisions for cancer susceptibility genetic testing (CSGT) uptake and dissemination of results occur within the family context. A national survey was performed with 990 patient–family member dyads (participation rate:76.2%), with paired questionnaires examining attitudes toward CSGT uptake and disclosure of results in response to a hypothetical scenario in which a reliable CSGT was available for the specific cancer a patient was being treated. While most patients and family members responded they would uptake or recommend CSGT if available, concordance between the dyads was poor for both patient's testing (agreement rate 77.5%, weighted κ = 0.09) and first‐degree relatives' testing(agreement rate 78.0%, weighted κ = 0.09). Most patients (93.2%) and family members (92.9%) indicated that patients should disclose positive CSGT results to family members, with dyadic agreement of 89.1% (κ = 0.15). However, there were substantial disagreement regarding when disclosure should take place, who should make the disclosure (the patient or the health care professionals), and to whom the results should be disclosed. Patients and family members may hold different attitudes toward CSGT uptake of and disclosure of results within the family. Our findings reinforce the need for a family system approach to incorporate perspectives of patients as well as their family members.     

Distinct communication patterns during genetic counseling for late-onset Alzheimer's risk assessment

Objective

To identify and characterize patient–provider communication patterns during disclosure of Alzheimer's disease genetic susceptibility test results and to assess whether these patterns reflect differing models of genetic counseling.

Methods

262 genetic counseling session audio-recordings were coded using the Roter Interactional Analysis System. Cluster analysis was used to distinguish communication patterns. Bivariate analyses were used to identify characteristics associated with the patterns.

Results

Three patterns were identified: Biomedical-Provider-Teaching (40%), Biomedical-Patient-Driven (34.4%), and Psychosocial-Patient-Centered (26%). Psychosocial-Patient-Centered and Biomedical-Provider-Teaching sessions included more female participants while the Biomedical-Patient-Driven sessions included more male participants (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Communication patterns observed reflected the teaching model primarily, with genetic counseling models less frequently used. The emphasis on biomedical communication may potentially be at the expense of more patient-centered approaches.

Practice implications

To deliver more patient-centered care, providers may need to better balance the ratio of verbal exchange with their patients, as well as their educational and psychosocial discussions. The delineation of these patterns provides insights into the genetic counseling process that can be used to improve the delivery of genetic counseling care. These results can also be used in future research designed to study the association between patient-centered genetic counseling communication and improved patient outcomes.     

Ethics and medical genetics in the United States. A national survey

The approaches of 295 medical geneticists in the United States to 14 clinical problems and 3 screening situations that required a moral choice aresummarized. These data are part of a survey of 682 geneticists in 19 nations. Of 490 U.S. geneticists asked to participate, 295 (60%) returned anonymous detailed questionnaires. There was strong (> 75%) consensus that preserving the mother's confidentiality overrides disclosure of true paternity; that conflicting test results, new/controversial interpretations of results, and ambiguous/artifactual results should be disclosed; that artificial insemination by donor, adoption, taking chances, contraception, sterilization, and in-vitro fertilization with a donor egg should be presented as reproductive options to carriers of disorders not diagnosable prenatally; that prenatal diagnosis should be performed for patients who refuse abortion and for maternal anxiety in the absence of medical indications; that screening in the workplace should be voluntary. There was no consensus about disclosure of a diagnosis of Huntington disease or hemophilia A to relatives at risk, against the patient's wishes, or about disclosure of parental translocations. Geneticists in the U.S. differed from 18 other nations in presenting surrogate motherhood as an option (67%); willingness to perform prenatal diagnosis for sex selection or refer (62%); and disclosure of XY genotype in a female (62%). Men were more likely than women to say that they would give directive counseling. Women were more likely than men to say that they would perform prenatal diagnosis for maternal anxiety or for sex selection.     

To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk

Communication about genetic risk in families is an important issue for genetic counsellors. The objective of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with patients in the Northeast of Scotland who had attended genetic counselling for risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Huntington's disease, and with some spouses/partners. The interviews confirmed that the issue of disclosure was a problem for some, and that there were generic communication issues common to both groups. Telling family members about genetic risk was generally seen as a family responsibility and family structures, dynamics and 'rules' influenced disclosure decisions. A sense of responsibility towards younger generations was also important. The level of certainty felt by a person in relation to his or her own risk estimate also influenced what he or she could tell other family members. Communication within a family about genetic risk is a complex issue and is influenced by both pre-existing familial and cultural factors and individuals' responses to risk information. If genetic counsellors understood how these factors operate in individual families they might be able to identify effective strategies to promote considered decisions and prevent unnecessary emotional distress.     

Adoption and the communication of genetic risk: experiences in Huntington disease

Adoption agencies can use genetic information to determine the eligibility of prospective adoptive parents and to establish a child's suitability for adoption. We describe experiences and implications of communicating genetic risk for Huntington disease (HD) in the context of adoption. A secondary analysis was employed using data collected from a cross-sectional survey (n = 233) and two qualitative studies on the psychosocial effects of predictive testing for HD. We demonstrate several ethical and practical challenges in the search for and communication of genetic information for adoptees and their birth relatives. We also found that concern for adoption discrimination was reported by 13.7% of survey respondents (n = 32). Concerns were higher among tested respondents than those who had not been tested (n = 29 vs n = 3, p = 0.010). However, more respondents were concerned about being discriminated based on their family history (FHx) vs their genetic test results (GTR) (concern based on FHx: n = 18 vs based on GTR: n = 1 vs based on both: n =10). These findings contribute to the limited empirical literature by offering evidence on the experiences and implications of communicating genetic risk information in the context of adoption with reference to HD.     

Research participants' attitudes towards the confidentiality of genomic sequence information

Respecting the confidentiality of personal data contributed to genomic studies is an important issue for researchers using genomic sequencing in humans. Although most studies adhere to rules of confidentiality, there are different conceptions of confidentiality and why it is important. The resulting ambiguity obscures what is at stake when making tradeoffs between data protection and other goals in research, such as transparency, reciprocity, and public benefit. Few studies have examined why participants in genomic research care about how their information is used. To explore this topic, we conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 30 participants in two National Institutes of Health research protocols using genomic sequencing. Our results show that research participants value confidentiality as a form of control over information about themselves. To the individuals we interviewed, control was valued as a safeguard against discrimination in a climate of uncertainty about future uses of individual genome data. Attitudes towards data sharing were related to the goals of research and details of participants'' personal lives. Expectations of confidentiality, trust in researchers, and a desire to advance science were common reasons for willingness to share identifiable data with investigators. Nearly, all participants were comfortable sharing personal data that had been de-identified. These findings suggest that views about confidentiality and data sharing are highly nuanced and are related to the perceived benefits of joining a research study.     

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: Data for genetic counseling relating age to risk

One hundred and nine individuals from complete sibships at risk for autosomal dominant Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease in 15 unrelated families were evaluated by physical examination and motor nerve conduction studies. Penetrance of the gene was 28% in the first decade, but was essentially complete by the middle of the third decade. The average age of onset of symptoms was 12.2 y, with a standard deviation of 7.3. Persons at risk who have no clinical manifestations and who are over age 27 have less than a 3% probability of having inherited the CMT gene.     

Knowledge of genetics and attitudes toward genetic testing in two hereditary ataxia (SCA 1) Kindreds

Molecular genetic predictive or prenatal genetic testing is now possible in families with one form of adult-onset, autosomal dominant ataxia (SCA 1). Before the SCA 1 gene was isolated, we began a study of the knowledge of genetics, the perception of the disease, and the intended use of genetic testing among members of two large SCA 1 kindreds. Questionnaires were sent to 210 consenting affected, at-risk, and spouse members of two SCA 1 kindreds; data from the 117 respondents were analyzed on a personal computer. Sixty-nine percent of respondents thought predictive testing (by genetic linkage) should be made available immediately, and 42% thought prenatal testing should be made available. The kindreds differed in several important aspects: knowledge of genetic concepts, family size, and anticipated emotional responses to genetic testing. No respondent had obtained individualized genetic counseling. There is moderate interest in genetic testing for this fatal neurodegenerative disease of adulthood. Members of our kindreds have not received genetic counseling outside of the research setting. Finally, factors specific to a particular kindred may influence or predict individual responses to genetic testing. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

All in the family: Evaluation of the process and content of sisters' communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results

Despite the potential importance of family communication, little is known about the process and content of communicating BRCA1/2 test results to relatives. The objectives of this observational study were to describe the process and content of communicating BRCA1/2 test results to sisters, and to evaluate whether the proband's carrier status influenced communication outcomes. Participants were 43 women who were the first family member to have genetic testing (probands). Probands reported on communication outcomes for 81 sisters. Process and content variables were evaluated 1‐month after receipt of BRCA1/2 test results using the Family Communication Questionnaire (FCQ). Overall, BRCA1/2 test results were communicated to 85% of sisters, and carriers communicated their results to significantly more sisters compared to uninformative (96% vs. 76%, FET = 0.02). The most important reason for communicating results was to provide genetic risk information; however, compared to uninformatives, carriers communicated their results to significantly more sisters to obtain emotional support (74%) and to get advice about medical decisions (42%) (FET = 0.001). Carriers also discussed the possibility of discrimination and recommendations for cancer management with significantly more sisters. Among sisters to whom BRCA1/2 test results were not communicated, the most important reason for not sharing test results was because of emotionally distant relationships. The results of this study suggest that probands are likely to quickly communicate their BRCA1/2 test results to relatives and that although needs for social support may motivate family communication, emotionally distant relationships may be a barrier to communication with relatives. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Most people share genetic test results with relatives even if the findings are normal: Family communication in a diverse population

PurposeWith increasing utilization of genetic testing, sharing genetic information can become part of general family health communication while providing biological relatives with important information about their own genetic risk. Importantly, little is known about motivations for and barriers to family communication of genetic information in historically underserved populations.MethodsUsing mixed methods, we explored patient experiences with family communication in a study population of English- and Spanish-speaking adults aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for participants from historically underserved backgrounds. Risk screening for hereditary cancer guided genetic testing for cancer risk genes and other medically actionable findings.ResultsMost participants overall (91%), including most with normal findings (89%), shared or planned to share their results with relatives. Common motivations for sharing results were to give relatives information about their genetic risk and because the participant thought the results were interesting. Reasons for not sharing were limited contact with relatives, perceptions of limited clinical utility for relatives, and concern that discussion of genetic information was stigmatized or taboo.ConclusionResults demonstrate high rates of sharing genetic information, indicate motivations for sharing go beyond facilitating genetic testing for relatives, and suggest general willingness to share genetic information as part of family health communication.     

Innovative approach to genetic counseling services for the deaf population

Genetic service providers have stressed the importance of genetic counseling that is nondirective and specific to the personal needs of consultands. Successful genetic counseling for deaf persons often requires special provisions for complex family histories, syndromic conditions, and diversity in communication methods and cultural orientation. The Gallaudet University Genetic Services Center (GSC) was established in 1984 to provide genetic education and counseling services to the deaf community. The GSC staff developed and implemented a standardized system of data collection (family and medical history), clinical evaluation by consultant clinical geneticists, and counseling in sign language. In addition to clinical services, an in-depth educational program for professionals and consumers was developed and carried out. During a 6-year period, over 220 educational presentations were made and 659 deaf persons were seen for genetic evaluation and counseling. Most of these persons were self-referred. Sign language was the preferred means of communication of more than 90% of these individuals. A genetic cause of deafness was diagnosed in over 50% of the deaf consultands and was confirmed by segregation analysis, which had results similar to those reported for other studies of students in schools for the deaf. Special materials and strategies were developed in order to provide genetic services that were sensitive to the cultural and linguistic differences of the deaf population. These included written and visual materials that contained culturally neutral terminology and training of all staff members in sign language and the culture of the deaf. © Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Clinical geneticists' and genetic counselors' views on the communication of genetic risks: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE: In genetic counseling, counselees' understanding of risk information is considered crucial for informed decision-making. The counselors' task is to convey risks in a format that is understandable. It is therefore important to know how and why counselors say they communicate risks in different formats, and to identify any perceived training needs. By investigating counselors' perspectives, training can be more tailored to their needs. METHODS: Interviews were held with 18 counselors in 4 of the 8 clinical genetic centres in The Netherlands. RESULTS: Counselors reported using different formats, but seemed to prefer a numerical format (e.g. percentages). Methods varied between counselors and depended on their training, their own abilities, experiences they have had with counselees, but rarely because of information they have gathered from the literature on risk communication. Counselors reported assessing comprehension most often from counselees' non-verbal responses, and reported tailoring their approaches to their clients' needs. Although some counselors are eager to know if their way of risk communication is 'right', overall the counselors did not report a need to be trained in risk communication. CONCLUSION: Counselors appear to have clear ideas about how to present risks, although evidence for their methods is often lacking. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training in general communication skills and evidence-based risk communication could be of benefit to counselors and, consequently, to their counselees.     

Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: A legal perspective

Carrier and presymptomatic genetic testing information can have profound psychological consequences for a patient and the family. American and Canadian professional accreditation standards for clinical genetics state that the health care provider must be prepared to provide psychological support. Through a survey of human/medical genetics journals and texts, this article identifies those protocols that constitute an appropriate standard of care, and examines the legal implications, particularly with regard to the law of medical malpractice. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Risk communication in genetic counseling: Exploring uptake and perception of recurrence numbers,and their impact on patient outcomes

Providing recurrence numbers is often considered a fundamental component of genetic counseling. We sought to fill knowledge gaps regarding how often patients actively seek recurrence numbers, and how they impact patient outcomes. We conducted a retrospective chart review at a clinic where patients routinely complete the Genetic Counseling Outcomes Scale (GCOS, measuring empowerment) pre (T1)/post (T2) appointment. Using analysis of covariance, we evaluated the effect on T2 GCOS score of: (1) receiving recurrence numbers and (2) patient perception of recurrence numbers. Recurrence numbers were a primary indication for 134/300 patients (45%). After counseling about etiology and risk‐reducing strategies, 116 patients (39%) opted to receive recurrence numbers, with most (n = 64, 55%) perceiving the number to be lower than expected. There was no difference in T2 GCOS scores between those who: (1) received recurrence numbers vs those who did not, or (2) perceived the number to be lower than expected vs those with other perceptions. However, a subset of patients who did not receive recurrence numbers had larger increases in GCOS scores. Our data provide impetus to question the assumption that recurrence numbers should be routinely provided in genetic counseling, and show that in naturalistic practice, optimal patient outcomes are not contingent on receipt of recurrence numbers.