Journal of Genetic Counseling最新文献

The Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24) was developed to measure patient-reported outcomes to evaluate the effectiveness of genetic counseling and testing services. In the current study, the Korean version of GCOS (K-GCOS) was developed to reflect the sociocultural characteristics of Korea, and its clinical applicability was assessed. Overall, 231 Koreans, including patients with genetic diseases and their family members, participated and completed the K-GCOS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scale, and Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Validity was examined by assessing the correlations between K-GCOS scores and other relevant scale scores. Reliability was confirmed using Cronbach's alpha and test-retest scores, measured over 2 weeks. We performed exploratory factor analysis of the five structures of GCOS-24. For K-GCOS, four-factor structures were identified: "cognitive-behavioral control," "uncertainty about control," "hope," and "emotional regulation." Four original GCOS-24 items were removed because of low factor loadings and small inter-item correlations. K-GCOS-20 scores were positively correlated with SWLS (r = 0.456) and MHLC-internal (r = 0.213) scores but negatively correlated with HADS (anxiety r = -0.428, depression r = -0.469) and MHLC-internal (r = -0.278) scores. These findings demonstrate that K-GCOS-20 is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating genetic counseling services in Korea.

Adoptees' use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is known to raise both ethical and emotional issues, and it can also challenge their identity. The objective of the present study was to describe the experiences of DTC-GT use among adoptees living in Quebec and to better understand the benefits and disadvantages of use. We adopted a mixed method approach whereby a questionnaire comprising standardized scales was administered to 143 adoptees who had used genetic testing and 40 adoptees who had not. Semi-structured interviews were performed with five respondents from the DTC-GT use group. The quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed and integrated together using the Pillar Integration Process. The results highlighted familial reunion as the primary motivation for the use of DTC-GT among responding adoptees. Reported challenges included needing help with results interpretation, as well as the need for autonomy in the ownership of the results. Participants describe not being particularly concerned by potential ethical issues, describing the benefits of the tests as more important than possible disadvantages. Overall, participants had a good experience of using DTC-GT, and users were less anxious. Various factors associated with the use and experience of use were highlighted (age, psychological distress, community membership, etc.). The results from this study provide much-needed information about adoptees' needs regarding DTC-GT, highlight key risk factors, and introduces best practice recommendations so that adoptees are properly informed and supported when pursuing DTC-GT.

In Canada, the field of genetic counseling is rapidly evolving alongside the increasing integration of and demand for genetics in healthcare practice. In tandem, there is a growing body of literature advocating for the regulation of genetic counseling, as legal recognition can protect patients from potential risk of harm and provide counselors with support by legally defining their roles and duties. However, there is a need for empirical qualitative research regarding the risks and challenges associated with the current lack of regulation to help inform these discussions. This article presents findings from 23 interviews with genetic counselors and their professional healthcare colleagues in Quebec. Themes were identified via interdisciplinary social scientific and legal content analysis. Notably, all participants were in favor of regulation, for varied reasons. Participant responses highlighted legal, organizational, and structural risks and challenges associated with the lack of legal recognition. First, the lack of role clarity creates issues with genetic counselors' working relationships and public recognition. Second, the autonomy of practitioners varies significantly, raising risks of liability and clinical preparedness when counselors have high autonomy or perform controlled acts. Third, the lack of recognition ultimately exacerbates structural strains on delivery and access to care. Results indicate that legal recognition stands to foster safer and more efficient provision of genetics services by increasing public awareness, instituting title protection and accountability mechanisms, clarifying professional scope, and mitigating liability risks. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to bring practicing stakeholders from across genetics services to the discussion on the lack of regulation of genetic counseling. Findings support the continued pursuit of legal recognition in Quebec and can inform similar initiatives in other jurisdictions.

Men with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are at an increased lifetime risk for developing breast cancer, prostate cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Men report that managing clinical care is challenging because they are under-informed about their cancer risks. As the demand for genetic testing has increased, so too has the need to relay accurate and relatable genetic health information. This research developed and assessed the acceptability and appropriateness of a psychoeducational graphic novel designed for men to improve their cancer risk knowledge, manage their cancer-related uncertainty, and increase their intent to disclose their BRCA1/2 risks to family members and healthcare providers. Through purposive and snowball sampling, men (n = 20) and certified genetic counselors (CGCs; n = 15) participated in semi-structured interviews assessing the acceptability and appropriateness of the graphic novel. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Both reported that the graphic novel confirmed risk information provided helpful resources, included relatable storylines, and had a unique visual appeal. Some men remained unsure about how to perform recommended screenings and how to talk to family members, particularly children, about BRCA1/2 test results after assessing the graphic novel. CGCs also discussed the helpfulness of the graphic novel for their practice. Given that this psychoeducational graphic novel was appealing to men and CGCs, it shows promise as an acceptable approach that may assist men in managing their cancer risks and communicating their genetic risk information to family members and healthcare providers.

While the heritability of suicidal tendencies is debated, receipt of various genetic diagnoses has shown an increased risk of suicidal ideation and behavior while simultaneously conferring risk to mental health concerns that may further increase this risk. However, the role of genetic counselors (GCs) in assessing and addressing suicide risk remains underutilized. A 15-item recruitment survey was distributed via the National Society of Genetic Counselors Student Research Survey Listserv, and interested individuals could opt to be contacted for an interview after completion. The data analysis included 107 survey responses and 15 semi-structured interviews, which were conducted to explore whether GCs feel that formal suicide risk assessment (SRA) falls within their scope of practice and the frequency with which it is employed during counseling sessions. Additionally, the study examined GCs' experiences, comfort levels, and training in assessing for suicide risk. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and independently coded by two researchers. The coding scheme was systematically constructed, integrating both deductive and inductive coding methods to inform the authors' interpretive description of SRA in the clinic, with four major themes identified by content analysis. Most respondents reported that they had worried about a patient harming themselves or having suicidal thoughts. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that SRA is within a GC's scope of practice. Lack of training emerged as the primary barrier to assessing suicide risk and conducting risk assessments. Other barriers included low self-efficacy, societal stigma, and personal discomfort, while access to social workers, natural inclination, and standardized screening tools served as facilitators. Despite encountering patients at risk of self-harm and suicide, most GCs do not utilize SRA tools. Furthermore, GCs expressed a strong desire for additional training to enhance their skills in identifying and managing at-risk patients. A multifocal approach to suicide risk reduction and education is required.

Background: Parents and survivors of retinoblastoma often hold misconceptions about the disease and desire more extensive and detailed information about its genetic nature. The aim of this study was to co-develop and evaluate a genetic education booklet for retinoblastoma.

Methods: A human-centered design approach was employed, in which the study team consulted with clinician and patient knowledge user groups to design, produce, and refine an educational booklet. Over three phases of consultation, the study team met with each knowledge user group to review booklet prototypes and collect feedback for its further refinement. A preliminary evaluation using quantitative and qualitative methods was completed with six mothers of children with retinoblastoma.

Results: The iterative, phased design process produced an educational booklet rich in images and stories, with complex genetic topics described in simplified terms. The preliminary evaluation showed an average improvement in knowledge between pre- and post-test questionnaire of 10%. Participants were satisfied with content and comprehensiveness of the information included in the booklet.

Conclusion: A novel educational tool for families affected by retinoblastoma was developed through collaboration with health care and patient knowledge users. Preliminary evaluation results indicate it is feasible to implement and study the booklet in a prospective, pragmatic trial to evaluate its efficacy.

In pediatric oncology, genetic and genomic tests are proposed throughout the care pathway for many reasons (e.g., cancer characterization, identification of the most appropriate treatment, patient selection for clinical trials, identification of tissue/organ donors, or risk of relapse prediction). Despite the many different approaches (somatic or germline testing, targeted gene or genome sequencing), the implicated individuals are confronted with situations that may intersect and that are interesting to compare. No study has identified and analyzed the available works on these new practices in pediatric oncology. The aim of this narrative literature review was to describe the ethical and psychological perspectives of children with cancer, parents, and healthcare professionals when genetic or genomic testing is proposed as part of the cancer management. Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were comprehensively coded using MAXQDA. Their analysis showed that concerning the subjective implications of genetic and genomic testing, the areas of ambivalence (desire of treatment, desire for knowledge, uncertainty, and guilt) reported by patients and their parents seem to mirror the healthcare professionals' concerns. The ethical and psychological issues about predisposition testing, long discussed in the context of hereditary retinoblastoma and Li-Fraumeni syndrome, represent a useful starting point for a wider discussion of a genetic and genomic testing pathway in pediatric oncology more broadly.

There are 10 gene therapies (GTs) for hereditary conditions that are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While prior research demonstrates that the majority of healthcare providers lack knowledge regarding GTs, this has not been explored within the genetic counseling profession. The authors hypothesize that the availability of GTs impacts the genetic counseling profession and that there is variable awareness on this topic among genetic counselors (GCs). We conducted a survey to assess GCs' familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing FDA-approved GTs at the time of the survey, as well as GCs' perceived impact of and educational experiences related to GT. The survey was distributed through listservs and word of mouth from January through March 2021. One hundred of the 109 responses met eligibility criteria. Respondents were more familiar with onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (ZOLGENSMA; Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., Durham, NC, USA) than voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (LUXTURNA; Spark Therapeutics, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA; p < 0.001). Familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing both GTs varied by specialty but not by years of experience. Fifty-nine percent of respondents (58/98) reported that GTs impact their work, with differences by specialty but not by years of experience. The majority of respondents (93%; 90/97) felt that GCs should be comfortable discussing GTs with patients, and most respondents (83%; 79/95) were interested in additional GT training. Only 38% of respondents (36/95) recalled GT being included in their genetic counseling training program's curriculum, which may be skewed by recent growth of this field. Our results suggest that GCs feel that GTs impact their practice, have discrepant awareness and comfort in this area, and desire additional training on this topic. Further investigation into the actual impact and models for addressing training is warranted and will be critical as the number of approved GTs increases.

Advances in our understanding of the genetic landscape of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have led to the clinical adoption of multi-gene panel testing. Panel testing introduces new sources of genetic uncertainty secondary to the inclusion of moderate- and low-penetrance genes, as well as the increased likelihood of identifying a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). This cross-sectional study explored the post-test psychological functioning of women who underwent multi-gene panel testing for HBOC susceptibility genes. Two hundred and ninety-five women who underwent panel testing within the previous 2 years completed a study questionnaire to measure levels of cancer-related and genetic testing-related distress using the Impact of Events Scale (IES) and the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), respectively. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between genetic test results and levels of psychological distress captured by the IES and MICRA. In this cohort, a pathogenic variant (PV) was identified in 41 (14%) of participants, and 77 (26%) participants were found to have a VUS. In the multi-variate model, higher mean levels of genetic testing-related distress were observed in individuals with a PV (p < 0.001) or a VUS (p = 0.007) compared to those with a negative result. Furthermore, participants with a PV in a moderate-penetrance gene were found to have higher levels of genetic testing-related distress compared to those with a PV in a high-risk gene (p = 0.03). Overall, participants were highly satisfied with their genetic testing experience, with 92% of individuals reporting they would recommend testing to others. Our findings highlight differences in psychological outcomes based on both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance, which contribute to our understanding of the impact of panel testing and sources of both cancer-related and genetic testing-related distress secondary to testing.

Workplace wellness programs are an emerging avenue for health-related genetic testing, with some large employers now offering such testing to employees. Employees' knowledge and concerns regarding genetic discrimination may impact their decision-making about and uptake of workplace genetic testing (wGT). This study describes employed adults' objective knowledge of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and evaluates how this knowledge correlates with attitudes and beliefs regarding wGT. Analyses utilized data from a large, national web-based survey of employed adults (N = 2000; mean age = 43 years; 51% female; 55.2% college educated). Overall, most respondents (57.3%) said they were unaware of any laws protecting against genetic discrimination. Specifically, 62.6% indicated they were not at all familiar with GINA. The primary study outcome was respondents' score on a 13-item measure assessing knowledge of basic facts about GINA. Participants had low overall GINA knowledge (M = 4.6/13 items correct (35%), SD = 2.9), with employees often presuming GINA offers greater legal protections than it does (e.g., 45.3% erroneously endorsed that GINA protected against discrimination in life insurance). Logistic regression analyses assessed associations between GINA knowledge and employees' demographic characteristics, prior experience with genetic testing, and attitudes regarding wGT. Variables significantly associated with GINA knowledge included higher interest in wGT (aOR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.77), self-reported familiarity with GINA (aOR = 2.02; 95% CI: 1.64, 2.50), and favorable attitudes toward wGT (aOR = 1.92; 95% CI: 1.52, 2.44). Results indicate public knowledge of GINA remains low over 15 years after its passage. These findings highlight the need for employee education on GINA before participating in wGT, as well as broader public education on GINA's legal protections and limitations. Genetic counselors lead GINA education efforts in clinical and public settings and can play a pivotal role in ongoing public education initiatives about GINA.