scholarly journals “They’re Not Going to Do Nothing for Me”: Research Participants’ Attitudes towards Elective Genetic Counseling

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Erica J. Sutton ◽  
Annika T. Beck ◽  
Kylie O. Gamm ◽  
Jennifer B. McCormick ◽  
Iftikhar J. Kullo ◽  
...  

As applications of genomic sequencing have expanded, offering genetic counseling support to all patients is arguably no longer practical. Additionally, whether individuals desire and value genetic counseling services for genomic screening is unclear. We offered elective genetic counseling to 5110 individuals prior to undergoing sequencing and 2310 participants who received neutral results to assess demand. A total of 0.2% of the study participants accessed genetic counseling services prior to sequencing, and 0.3% reached out after receiving neutral results. We later conducted 50 interviews with participants to understand why they did not access these services. Many interviewees did not recall the availability of genetic counseling and were unfamiliar with the profession. Interviewees described not needing counseling before sequencing because they understood the study and felt that they could cope with any result. Counseling was considered equally unnecessary after learning neutral results. Although the participants had questions about their results, they did not feel that speaking with a genetic counselor would be helpful. Genomic screening efforts that employ opt-in models of genetic counseling may need to clarify the potential value of genetic counseling support from the outset and feature genetic counseling services more prominently in program materials.

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 322
Author(s):  
Annika T. Beck ◽  
Erica J. Sutton ◽  
Carolyn P. Y. Chow ◽  
Susan H. Curtis ◽  
Iftikhar J. Kullo ◽  
...  

As genomic sequencing expands to screen larger numbers of individuals, offering genetic counseling to everyone may not be possible. One approach to managing this limitation is for a genetic counselor to communicate clinically actionable results in person or by telephone, but report other results by mail. We employed this approach in a large genomic implementation study. In this paper, we describe participants’ experiences receiving genomic screening results by mail. We conducted 50 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who received neutral genomic screening results by mail. Most participants were satisfied receiving neutral results by mail. Participants generally had a good understanding of results; however, a few participants had misunderstandings about their genomic screening results, including mistaken beliefs about their disease risk and the comprehensiveness of the test. No one reported plans to alter health behaviors, defer medical evaluations, or take other actions that might be considered medically problematic. Reporting neutral results by mail is unlikely to cause recipients distress or generate misunderstandings that may result in reduced vigilance in following recommended preventive health strategies. Nonetheless, some individuals may benefit from additional genetic counseling support to help situate their results in the context of personal concerns and illness experiences.


1980 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Passarge ◽  
F. Vogel ◽  
K. Berg ◽  
N. P. Bochkov ◽  
A. Czeizel ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Skinner ◽  
Colleen Guimond ◽  
Rachel Butler ◽  
Emily Dwosh ◽  
Anthony L. Traboulsee ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 976-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allyson E. Somers ◽  
Stephanie M. Ware ◽  
Kathleen Collins ◽  
John L. Jefferies ◽  
Hua He ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajech Sharkia ◽  
Jalal Tarabeia ◽  
Abdelnaser Zalan ◽  
Esmael Atamany ◽  
Muhammad Athamna ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 996-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jubilee Brown ◽  
Aly Athens ◽  
David L. Tait ◽  
Erin K. Crane ◽  
Robert V. Higgins ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to demonstrate the utility of a comprehensive program involving management-based evidence, telemedicine, and patient navigation to provide genetic counseling services for patients with ovarian and breast cancer across a geographically large health care system.MethodsWe identified all patients with newly diagnosed ovarian and breast cancer in our health care system from January 2013 to December 2015 through the cancer registry. Referral characteristics and testing outcomes were recorded for each year and compared using the χ2 or Fisher exact test.ResultsBecause the implementation of this program, the number of new ovarian cancer cases remained constant (109–112 cases/year) but patients referred for genetic counseling increased annually from 37% to 43% to 96% (P < 0.05). The percentage of ovarian cancer patients who underwent genetic testing increased annually from 24% to 27% to 53% (P < 0.05). The number of new breast cancer patients was constant (1543–1638 cases/year). The percentage of patients with triple negative breast cancer referred for genetic counseling rose from 69% in 2013 to 91% in 2015; the percentage of patients who underwent testing increased annually from 59% to 86% (P < 0.05). Of women with breast cancer diagnosed at less than 45 years of age, 78% to 85% were referred for genetic counseling across this period; the percentage of patients who underwent testing increased annually from 66% to 82% (P < 0.05). Patient navigation was initiated and was available to all patients in the system during this period. Telemedicine consults were performed in 118 breast/ovarian patients (6%) during this period.ConclusionsA comprehensive program may improve access to effective genetic counseling services in patients with ovarian and breast cancer despite geographic barriers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document