» Articles » PMID: 29199389

Development and Evaluation of a Telephone Communication Protocol for the Delivery of Personalized Melanoma Genomic Risk to the General Population

Overview
Journal J Genet Couns
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Genetics
Date 2017 Dec 5
PMID 29199389
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Communicating personalized genomic risk results for common diseases to the general population as a form of tailored prevention is novel and may require alternative genetic counseling service delivery models. We describe the development and evaluation of a communication protocol for disclosing melanoma genomic risk information to the asymptomatic general population and assess participants' satisfaction and acceptability. Participants (n = 117) were aged 22-69 years, living in New South Wales, Australia and unselected for family history. They provided a saliva sample and had genomic testing for melanoma for low to moderate penetrant melanoma susceptibility variants in 21 genes. Participants could choose to receive their results from a genetic counselor via telephone, followed by a mailed booklet or to receive their risk result via mailed booklet only with a follow-up call for those at high risk. A follow-up questionnaire was completed by 85% of participants 3-months later. Most participants (80%) elected to receive their result via telephone. Participants were highly satisfied with the delivery of results (mean 3.4 out of 4, standard deviation 0.5), and this did not differ by delivery mode, risk category, age or sex. On follow-up, 75% accurately recalled their risk category, 6% indicated a preference for a different delivery mode, either electronic or face-to-face. The process of disclosing genomic risk results to the general population over the telephone with accompanying written material was feasible and acceptable, and may be useful for communicating polygenic risk for common diseases in the context of increasing demands for genomic testing.

Citing Articles

Development and evaluation of patient-centred polygenic risk score reports for glaucoma screening.

Hollitt G, Hassall M, Siggs O, Craig J, Souzeau E BMC Med Genomics. 2025; 18(1):21.

PMID: 39885483 PMC: 11783763. DOI: 10.1186/s12920-024-02079-z.


Evaluating an approach for communicating integrated risk scores for melanoma.

Wallingford C, Mothershaw A, Primiero C, Clinch T, Dawson T, Ingold N Eur J Hum Genet. 2024; .

PMID: 39613910 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01750-4.


Experiences across a genetic screening and testing programme pathway: a qualitative study of mammogram patient perspectives.

Devine C, Emery K, Childers K, Brown S, Gordon O, Roth S BMJ Open. 2024; 14(10):e089884.

PMID: 39448212 PMC: 11499760. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089884.


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.


Communicating Personal Melanoma Polygenic Risk Information: Participants' Experiences of Genetic Counseling in a Community-Based Study.

Smit A, Espinoza D, Fenton G, Kirk J, Innes J, McGovern M J Pers Med. 2022; 12(10).

PMID: 36294720 PMC: 9605561. DOI: 10.3390/jpm12101581.


References
1.
Weinstock M . Reducing death from melanoma and standards of evidence. J Invest Dermatol. 2012; 132(5):1311-2. DOI: 10.1038/jid.2012.57. View

2.
Lloyd S, Watson M, Waites B, Meyer L, Eeles R, Ebbs S . Familial breast cancer: a controlled study of risk perception, psychological morbidity and health beliefs in women attending for genetic counselling. Br J Cancer. 1996; 74(3):482-7. PMC: 2074635. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1996.387. View

3.
Smit A, Keogh L, Hersch J, Newson A, Butow P, Williams G . Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study. Health Expect. 2015; 19(6):1203-1214. PMC: 5139046. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12406. View

4.
Salemink S, Dekker N, Kets C, van der Looij E, van Zelst-Stams W, Hoogerbrugge N . Focusing on patient needs and preferences may improve genetic counseling for colorectal cancer. J Genet Couns. 2012; 22(1):118-24. PMC: 3553404. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-012-9519-5. View

5.
Hawley S, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A . The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 73(3):448-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023. View