Developing an intervention to facilitate family communication about inherited genetic conditions, and training genetic counsellors in its delivery.

Many families experience difficulty in talking about an inherited genetic condition that affects one or more of them. There have now been a number of studies identifying the issues in detail, however few have developed interventions to assist families. The SPRinG collaborative have used the UK Medical Research Council's guidance on Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions, to work with families and genetic counsellors (GCs) to co-design a psycho-educational intervention to facilitate family communication and promote better coping and adaptation to living with an inherited genetic condition for parents and their children (<18 years). The intervention is modelled on multi-family discussion groups (MFDGs) used in psychiatric settings. The MFDG was developed and tested over three phases. First focus groups with parents, young people, children and health professionals discussed whether MFDG was acceptable and proposed a suitable design. Using evidence and focus group data, the intervention and a training manual were developed and three GCs were trained in its delivery. Finally, a prototype MFDG was led by a family therapist and co-facilitated by the three GCs. Data analysis showed that families attending the focus groups and intervention thought MFDG highly beneficial, and the pilot sessions had a significant impact on their family' functioning. We also demonstrated that it is possible to train GCs to deliver the MFDG intervention. Further studies are now required to test the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to evaluate its effectiveness in improving family outcomes before implementing into genetic counselling practice.The National Institute of Health Research funded the study but any views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Authority. Funded by NIHR reference number: RP-DG-1211-10015

A whisper-game perspective on the family communication of DNA-test results: a retrospective study on the communication process of BRCA1/2-test results between proband and relatives

Objective of this paper is to study how DNA-test result information was communicated and perceived within families. A retrospective descriptive study in 13 probands with a BRCA1/2 unclassified variant, 7 with a pathogenic mutation, 5 with an uninformative result, and in 44, 14, and 12 of their 1st and 2nd degree relatives respectively. We examined differences and correlations between: (a) information actually communicated (b) probands' perception, (c) relatives' perception. The perception consisted of recollections and interpretations of both their own and their relatives' cancer-risks, and heredity-likelihood (i.e. likelihood that cancer is heritable in the family). Differences and low correlations suggested few similarities between the actually communicated information, the probands' and the relatives' perception. More specifically, probands recalled the communicated information differently compared with the actually communicated information (R = .40), and reinterpreted this information differently (R = .30). The relatives' perception was best correlated with the proband's interpretation (R = .08), but this perception differed significantly from their proband's perception. Finally, relatives reinterpreted the information they received from their proband differently (R = .25), and this interpretation was only slightly related with the original message communicated by the genetic-counsellor (R = .15). Unclassified-variants were most frequently misinterpreted by probands and relatives, and had the largest differences between probands' and relatives' perceptions. Like in a children's whisper-game, many errors occur in the transmission of DNA-test result information in families. More attention is required for how probands disseminate information to relatives. Genetic-counsellors may help by supporting the probands in communicating to relatives, e.g. by providing clear summary letters for relatives

GP-initiated preconception counselling in a randomised controlled trial does not induce anxiety

BACKGROUND: Preconception counselling (PCC) can reduce adverse pregnancy outcome by addressing risk factors prior to pregnancy. This study explores whether anxiety is induced in women either by the offer of PCC or by participation with GP-initiated PCC. METHODS: Randomised trial of usual care versus GP-initiated PCC for women aged 18–40, in 54 GP practices in the Netherlands. Women completed the six-item Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) before PCC (STAI-1) and after (STAI-2). After pregnancy women completed a STAI focusing on the first trimester of pregnancy (STAI-3). RESULTS: The mean STAI-1-score (n = 466) was 36.4 (95% CI 35.4 – 37.3). Following PCC there was an average decrease of 3.6 points in anxiety-levels (95% CI, 2.4 – 4.8). Mean scores of the STAI-3 were 38.5 (95% CI 37.7 – 39.3) in the control group (n = 1090) and 38.7 (95% CI 37.9 – 39.5) in the intervention group (n = 1186). CONCLUSION: PCC from one's own GP reduced anxiety after participation, without leading to an increase in anxiety among the intervention group during pregnancy. We therefore conclude that GPs can offer PCC to the general population without fear of causing anxiety. Trial Registration: ISRCTN5394291

Is genetic counseling a stressful event?

Purpose. The aim of this paper was to investigate whether cancer genetic counseling could be considered as a stressful event and associated with more anxiety and/or depression compared to other cancer-related events for instance attending mammography screening or receiving a cancer diagnosis. Methods. A total of 4911 individuals from three Scandinavian countries were included in the study. Data was collected from individuals who had attended either cancer genetic counseling (self-referred and physician-referred) or routine mammography screening, were recalled for a second mammograpy due to a suspicious mammogram, had received a cancer diagnosis or had received medical follow-up after a breast cancer-surgery. Data from the genetic counseling group was also compared to normative data. Participants filled in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale twice: prior to a potentially stressful event and 14 days after the event. Results. Pre-counseling cancer genetic counselees reported significant lower level of anxiety compared to the cancer-related group, but higher levels of anxiety compared to the general population. Furthermore, the level of depression observed within the genetic counseling group was lower compared to other participants. Post-event there was no significant difference in anxiety levels between the cancer genetic counselees and all other groups; however, the level of depression reported in the self-referred group was significantly lower than observed in all other groups. Notably, the level of anxiety and depression had decreased significantly from pre-to post-events within the genetic counseling group. In the cancer-related group only the level of anxiety had decreased significantly post-event. Conclusion. Individuals who attend cancer genetic counseling do not suffer more anxiety or depression compared to all other cancer-related groups. However, some counselees might need additional sessions and extended support. Thus, identifying extremely worried individuals who need more support, and allocating further resources to their care, seems to be more sufficient

Effectiveness of a self-management intervention with personalised genetic and lifestyle-related risk information on coronary heart disease and diabetes-related risk in type 2 diabetes (CoRDia): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Many patients with type 2 diabetes fail to achieve good glycaemic control. Poor control is associated with complications including coronary heart disease (CHD). Effective self-management and engagement in health behaviours can reduce risks of complications. However, patients often struggle to adopt and maintain these behaviours. Self-management interventions have been found to be effective in improving glycaemic control. Recent developments in the field of genetics mean that patients can be given personalised information about genetic- and lifestyle-associated risk of developing CHD. Such information may increase patients’ motivation to engage in self-management. The Coronary Risk in Diabetes (CoRDia) trial will compare the effectiveness of a self-management intervention, with and without provision of personalised genetic- and lifestyle-associated risk information, with usual care, on clinical and behavioural outcomes, the cognitive predictors of behaviour, and psychological wellbeing. Methods/Design Participants will be adults aged 25–74 years registered with general practices in the East of England, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, with no history of heart disease, and with a glycated haemoglobin level of ≥6.45 % (47 mmol/mol). Consenting participants will be randomised to one of three arms: usual care control, group self-management only, group self-management plus personalised genetic- and lifestyle-associated risk information. The self-management groups will receive four weekly 2-hour group sessions, focusing on knowledge and information sharing, problem solving, goal setting and action planning to promote medication adherence, healthy eating, and physical activity. Primary outcomes are glycaemic control and CHD risk. Clinical data will be collected from GP records, including HbA1c, weight, body mass index, blood pressure, and HDL and total cholesterol. Self-reported health behaviours, including medication adherence, healthy eating and physical activity, and cognitive outcomes will be assessed by questionnaire. Measures will be taken at baseline, 3 months (questionnaire only), 6 months and 12 months post-baseline. Discussion This study will determine whether the addition of personalised genetic- and lifestyle-associated CHD risk information to a group self-management intervention improves diabetes control and CHD risk compared with group self-management and usual care. Effectiveness of the combined intervention on health behaviours cognitions theorised to predict them, and psychological outcomes will also be investigated. Trial registration This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; registration identifier NCT01891786, registered 28 June 2013

Behavioral and psychosocial effects of rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: Design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been estimated that between 5% and 10% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have a hereditary form of the disease, primarily caused by a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>gene mutation. Such women have an increased risk of developing a new primary breast and/or ovarian tumor, and may therefore opt for preventive surgery (e.g., bilateral mastectomy, oophorectomy). It is common practice to offer high-risk patients genetic counseling and DNA testing after their primary treatment, with genetic test results being available within 4-6 months. However, some non-commercial laboratories can currently generate test results within 3 to 6 weeks, and thus make it possible to provide <it>rapid </it>genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) prior to primary treatment. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of RGCT on treatment decisions and on psychosocial health.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In this randomized controlled trial, 255 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with at least a 10% risk of carrying a <it>BRCA </it>gene mutation are being recruited from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants are randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either a RGCT intervention group (the offer of RGCT directly following diagnosis with tests results available before surgical treatment) or to a usual care control group. The primary behavioral outcome is the uptake of direct bilateral mastectomy or delayed prophylactic contralateral mastectomy. Psychosocial outcomes include cancer risk perception, cancer-related worry and distress, health-related quality of life, decisional satisfaction and the perceived need for and use of additional decisional counseling and psychosocial support. Data are collected via medical chart audits and self-report questionnaires administered prior to randomization, and at 6 month and at 12 month follow-up.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will provide essential information on the impact of RGCT on the choice of primary surgical treatment among women with breast cancer with an increased risk of hereditary cancer. This study will also provide data on the psychosocial consequences of RGCT and of risk-reducing behavior.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1493) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00783822).</p