» Articles » PMID: 25355401

Development of a Communication Protocol for Telephone Disclosure of Genetic Test Results for Cancer Predisposition

Overview
Journal JMIR Res Protoc
Publisher JMIR Publications
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2014 Oct 31
PMID 25355401
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Dissemination of genetic testing for disease susceptibility, one application of "personalized medicine", holds the potential to empower patients and providers through informed risk reduction and prevention recommendations. Genetic testing has become a standard practice in cancer prevention for high-risk populations. Heightened consumer awareness of "cancer genes" and genes for other diseases (eg, cardiovascular and Alzheimer's disease), as well as the burgeoning availability of increasingly complex genomic tests (ie, multi-gene, whole-exome and -genome sequencing), has escalated interest in and demand for genetic risk assessment and the specialists who provide it. Increasing demand is expected to surpass access to genetic specialists. Thus, there is urgent need to develop effective and efficient models of delivery of genetic information that comparably balance the risks and benefits to the current standard of in-person communication.

Objective: The aim of this pilot study was to develop and evaluate a theoretically grounded and rigorously developed protocol for telephone communication of BRCA1/2 (breast cancer) test results that might be generalizable to genetic testing for other hereditary cancer and noncancer syndromes.

Methods: Stakeholder data, health communication literature, and our theoretical model grounded in Self-Regulation Theory of Health Behavior were used to develop a telephone communication protocol for the communication of BRCA1/2 genetic test results. Framework analysis of selected audiotapes of disclosure sessions and stakeholders' feedback were utilized to evaluate the efficacy and inform refinements to this protocol.

Results: Stakeholder feedback (n=86) and audiotapes (38%, 33/86) of telephone disclosures revealed perceived disadvantages and challenges including environmental factors (eg, non-private environment), patient-related factors (eg, low health literacy), testing-related factors (eg, additional testing needed), and communication factors (eg, no visual cues). Resulting modifications to the communication protocol for BRCA1/2 test results included clarified patient instructions, scheduled appointments, refined visual aids, expanded disclosure checklist items, and enhanced provider training.

Conclusions: Analyses of stakeholders' experiences and audiotapes of telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results informed revisions to communication strategies and a protocol to enhance patient outcomes when utilizing telephone to disclose genetic test results.

Citing Articles

The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors.

Henderson T, Allen M, Mim R, Egleston B, Fleisher L, Elkin E BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):253.

PMID: 38414045 PMC: 10900774. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-10586-z.


Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education.

Kilbride M, Egleston B, Chung W, Olopade O, Maxwell K, Shah P J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41(31):4905-4915.

PMID: 37611220 PMC: 10617912. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00516.


The growing needs of genetic counselling-Feasibility in utilization of tele-genetic counselling in Asia and Hong Kong.

Chu A, Chung C, Hue S, Chung B Front Genet. 2023; 14:1239817.

PMID: 37600657 PMC: 10435751. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1239817.


Ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) and challenges in the design of a randomized controlled trial to test the online return of cancer genetic research results to U.S. Black women.

Wang C, Bertrand K, Trevino-Talbot M, Flynn M, Ruderman M, Cabral H Contemp Clin Trials. 2023; 132:107309.

PMID: 37516165 PMC: 10544717. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2023.107309.


Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer.

Bradbury A, Patrick-Miller L, Egleston B, Maxwell K, DiGiovanni L, Brower J JCO Precis Oncol. 2020; 2.

PMID: 32095738 PMC: 7039346. DOI: 10.1200/po.17.00250.


References
1.
Acheson L, Crabtree B . How do people interpret their family histories of diabetes, coronary disease, or cancer?. Ann Fam Med. 2004; 2(6):532-3. PMC: 1466754. DOI: 10.1370/afm.247. View

2.
Weitzel J, Blazer K, MacDonald D, Culver J, Offit K . Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(5):327-59. PMC: 3346864. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20128. View

3.
. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(12):2397-406. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.03.189. View

4.
DeMarco T, Peshkin B, Mars B, Tercyak K . Patient satisfaction with cancer genetic counseling: a psychometric analysis of the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale. J Genet Couns. 2009; 13(4):293-304. PMC: 3551590. DOI: 10.1023/b:jogc.0000035523.96133.bc. View

5.
Schlich-Bakker K, ten Kroode H, Ausems M . A literature review of the psychological impact of genetic testing on breast cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 62(1):13-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.08.012. View