Prognostic Factors for Distress After Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

The psychological impact of an unfavorable genetic test result for counselees at risk for hereditary cancer seems to be limited: only 10-20 % of counselees have psychological problems after testing positive for a known familial mutation. The objective of this study was to find prognostic factors that can predict which counselees are most likely to develop psychological problems after presymptomatic genetic testing. Counselees with a 50 % risk of BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome completed questionnaires at three time-points: after receiving a written invitation for a genetic counseling intake (T1), 2-3 days after receiving their DNA test result (T2), and 4-6 weeks later (T3). The psychological impact of the genetic test result was examined shortly and 4-6 weeks after learning their test result. Subsequently, the influence of various potentially prognostic factors on psychological impact were examined in the whole group. Data from 165 counselees were analyzed. Counselees with an unfavorable outcome did not have more emotional distress, but showed significantly more cancer worries 4-6 weeks after learning their test result. Prognostic factors for cancer worries after genetic testing were pre-existing cancer worries, being single, a high risk perception of getting cancer, and an unfavorable test result. Emotional distress was best predicted by pre-existing cancer worries and pre-existing emotional distress. The psychological impact of an unfavorable genetic test result appears considerable if it is measured as "worries about cancer." Genetic counselors should provide additional guidance to counselees with many cancer worries, emotional distress, a high risk perception or a weak social network

A discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics services

To determine which aspects of breast cancer genetic counselling are important to Ashkenazi Jewish women, a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Participants consisted of 339 Australian Ashkenazi Jewish women who provided a blood sample for research used to test for Ashkenazi Jewish ancestral mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, and were offered their genetic test result through a cancer genetics service. Main outcome measures were women's preferences for, and trade-offs between, the genetic counselling aspects of providing cancer, gene, and risk information (information); giving advice about cancer surveillance (surveillance); preparing for genetic testing (preparation); and, assistance with decision-making (direction). Respondents most valued information, about twice as much as advice about surveillance, four times as much as preparation for testing, and nine times as much as assistance with decision-making, which was least valued. Women's preferences were consistent with the major goals of genetic counselling, which include providing information and surveillance advice, and avoiding direction by facilitating autonomous decision-making. There were differences between the women in which aspects they most favoured, suggesting that counselling that elicits and responds to clients' preferences is more likely to meet clients' needs

Non invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders:Exploring the ethics

Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders is now clearly on the horizon. This new technology offers obvious clinical benefits such as safe testing early in pregnancy. Before widespread implementation, it is important to consider the possible ethical implications. Four hypothetical scenarios are presented that highlight how ethical ideals of respect for autonomy, privacy and fairness may come into play when offering non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders. The first scenario illustrates the moral case for using these tests for ‘information only', identifying a potential conflict between larger numbers of women seeking the benefits of the test and the wider social impact of funding tests that do not offer immediate clinical benefit. The second scenario shows how the simplicity and safety of non-invasive prenatal testing could lead to more autonomous decision-making and, conversely, how this could also lead to increased pressure on women to take up testing. In the third scenario we show how, unless strong safeguards are put in place, offering non-invasive prenatal testing could be subject to routinisation with informed consent undermined and that woman who are newly diagnosed as carriers may be particularly vulnerable. The final scenario introduces the possibility of a conflict of the moral rights of a woman and her partner through testing for single gene disorders. This analysis informs our understanding of the potential impacts of non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders on clinical practice and has implications for future policy and guidelines for prenatal care

Patient Safety in the Cardiac Operating Room: Human Factors and Teamwork: A Scientific Study from the American Heart Association

The cardiac surgical operating room (OR) is a complex environment in which highly trained subspecialists interact with each other using sophisticated equipment to care for patients with severe cardiac disease and significant comorbidities. Thousands of patient lives have been saved or significantly improved with the advent of modern cardiac surgery. Indeed, both mortality and morbidity for coronary artery bypass surgery have decreased during the past decade. Nonetheless, the highly skilled and dedicated personnel in cardiac ORs are human and will make errors. Refined techniques, advanced technologies, and enhanced coordination of care have led to significant improvements in cardiac surgery outcomes

Misunderstandings Concerning Genetics Among Patients Confronting Genetic Disease

Critical questions arise about misunderstandings of genetics. We interviewed for 2 h each, 64 individuals who had or were at risk for Huntington's disease (HD), breast cancer or Alpha‐1 antitrypsin deficiency. These individuals revealed various misunderstandings that can affect coping, and testing, treatment and reproductive decisions. A therapeutic misconception about testing appeared: that testing would be helpful in and of itself. Many believed they could control genetic disorders (even HD), yet these beliefs were often incorrect, and could impede coping, testing, and treatment. Misunderstandings about statistics and genetics often fueled each other, and reflected denial, and desires for hope and control. Emotional needs can thus outweigh understandings of genetics and statistics, and providers’ input. Individuals often maintained non‐scientific beliefs, though embarrassed by these. These data have implications for care, and public and professional education. Misunderstandings’ persistence, despite realization of their inaccuracy, suggests that providers need to address not just cognitive facts, but underlying emotional issues