Genetic Counselors' and Community Clinicians' Implementation and Perceived Barriers to Informed Consent During Pre-test Counseling for Hereditary Cancer Risk

Overview

Journal J Genet Couns

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Genetics

Date 2024 Mar 13

PMID 38480478

Authors

Alexandra Capasso

Bita Nehoray

Nicholas Gorman

Emily A Quinn

Daiana Bucio

Kathleen R Blazer

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Citing Articles

Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk.

Capasso A, Nehoray B, Gorman N, Quinn E, Bucio D, Blazer K J Genet Couns. 2024; 34(1):e1887.

PMID: 38480478 PMC: 11393174. DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1887.

References

Jenkins B, Fischer C, Polito C, Maiese D, Keehn A, Lyon M . The 2019 US medical genetics workforce: a focus on clinical genetics. Genet Med. 2021; 23(8):1458-1464. PMC: 8091643. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01162-5. View

Tiner J, Mechanic L, Gallicchio L, Gillanders E, Helzlsouer K . Awareness and use of genetic testing: An analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey 2020. Genet Med. 2022; 24(12):2526-2534. PMC: 9746668. DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.08.023. View

Blazer K, Christie C, Uman G, Weitzel J . Impact of web-based case conferencing on cancer genetics training outcomes for community-based clinicians. J Cancer Educ. 2012; 27(2):217-25. PMC: 3857095. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-012-0313-8. View

Schienda J, Stopfer J . Cancer Genetic Counseling-Current Practice and Future Challenges. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2019; 10(6). PMC: 7263095. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a036541. View

Maiese D, Keehn A, Lyon M, Flannery D, Watson M . Current conditions in medical genetics practice. Genet Med. 2019; 21(8):1874-1877. PMC: 6752678. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0417-6. View

Legare F, Ratte S, Gravel K, Graham I . Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 73(3):526-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018. View

Cohen S, Bradbury A, Henderson V, Hoskins K, Bednar E, Arun B . Genetic Counseling and Testing in a Community Setting: Quality, Access, and Efficiency. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019; 39:e34-e44. DOI: 10.1200/EDBK_238937. View

Alvarado M, Tiller G, Chung J, Haque R . Prevalence of mutations in a diverse cohort of 3162 women tested via the same multigene cancer panel in a managed care health plan. J Community Genet. 2020; 11(3):359-366. PMC: 7295891. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-020-00456-6. View

Idos G, Kurian A, Ricker C, Sturgeon D, Culver J, Kingham K . Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021; 3. PMC: 8260917. DOI: 10.1200/PO.18.00217. View

10.

Furniss C, Yurgelun M, Ukaegbu C, Constantinou P, Lafferty C, Talcove-Berko E . Novel Models of Genetic Education and Testing for Pancreatic Cancer Interception: Preliminary Results from the GENERATE Study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2021; 14(11):1021-1032. PMC: 8563400. DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-20-0642. View

11.

Capasso A, Nehoray B, Gorman N, Quinn E, Bucio D, Blazer K . Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk. J Genet Couns. 2024; 34(1):e1887. PMC: 11393174. DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1887. View

12.

Couch F, Shimelis H, Hu C, Hart S, Polley E, Na J . Associations Between Cancer Predisposition Testing Panel Genes and Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3(9):1190-1196. PMC: 5599323. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0424. View

13.

Robson M, Bradbury A, Arun B, Domchek S, Ford J, Hampel H . American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement Update: Genetic and Genomic Testing for Cancer Susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33(31):3660-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0996. View

14.

Rubanovich C, Cheung C, Mandel J, Bloss C . Physician preparedness for big genomic data: a review of genomic medicine education initiatives in the United States. Hum Mol Genet. 2018; 27(R2):R250-R258. PMC: 6061688. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddy170. View

15.

Hoskovec J, Bennett R, Carey M, DaVanzo J, Dougherty M, Hahn S . Projecting the Supply and Demand for Certified Genetic Counselors: a Workforce Study. J Genet Couns. 2017; 27(1):16-20. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0158-8. View

16.

Giri V, Walker A, Gross L, Trabulsi E, Lallas C, Kelly W . Helix: A Digital Tool to Address Provider Needs for Prostate Cancer Genetic Testing in Clinical Practice. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2022; 20(2):e104-e113. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.11.009. View

17.

Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde J . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2008; 42(2):377-81. PMC: 2700030. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. View

18.

Brown S, Culver J, Osann K, MacDonald D, Sand S, Thornton A . Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 83(1):92-8. PMC: 4041683. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.027. View

19.

Ormond K, Hallquist M, Buchanan A, Dondanville D, Cho M, Smith M . Developing a conceptual, reproducible, rubric-based approach to consent and result disclosure for genetic testing by clinicians with minimal genetics background. Genet Med. 2018; 21(3):727-735. PMC: 6320736. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0093-6. View

20.

Riley B, Culver J, Skrzynia C, Senter L, Peters J, Costalas J . Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. 2011; 21(2):151-61. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-011-9462-x. View