Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: where and how does genetic counseling fit?

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for disease ranges from well-validated diagnostic and predictive tests to ‘research’ results conferring increased risks. While being targeted at public curious about their health, they are also marketed for use in reproductive decision-making or management of disease. By virtue of being ‘direct-to-consumer’ much of this testing bypasses traditional healthcare systems. We argue that direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies should make genetic counseling available, pre- as well as post-test. While we do not advocate that mandatory genetic counseling should gate-keep access to direct-to-consumer genetic testing, if the testing process has the potential to cause psychological distress, then companies have a responsibility to provide support and should not rely on traditional healthcare systems to pick up the pieces

The role of the genetic counsellor: a systematic review of research evidence

In Europe, genetic counsellors are employed in specialist genetic centres or other specialist units. According to the European Board of Medical Genetics, the genetic counsellor must fulfil a range of roles, including provision of information and facilitation of psychosocial adjustment of the client to their genetic status and situation. To evaluate the extent to which genetic counsellors fulfil their prescribed roles, we conducted a systematic review of the published relevant scientific evidence. We searched five relevant electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, SocIndex, AMED and PsychInfo) using relevant search terms and handsearched four subject-specific journals for research-based papers published in English between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2013. Of 419 potential papers identified initially, seven satisfied the inclusion criteria for the review. Themes derived from the thematic analysis of the data were: (i) rationale for genetic counsellors to provide care, (ii) appropriate roles and responsibilities and (iii) the types of conditions included in the genetic counsellor caseload. The findings of this systematic review indicate that where genetic counsellors are utilised in specialist genetic settings, they undertake a significant workload associated with direct patient care and this appears to be acceptable to patients. With the burden on genetic services, there is an argument for the increased use of genetic counsellors in countries where they are under-utilised. In addition, roles undertaken by genetic counsellors in specialist genetic settings could be adapted to integrate genetic counsellors into multi-disciplinary teams in other specialisms

Experiences With and Attitudes Toward Death and Dying Among Homeless Persons

BACKGROUND: Homeless persons face many barriers to health care, have few resources, and experience high death rates. They live lives of disenfranchisement and neglect. Few studies have explored their experiences and attitudes toward death and dying. Unfortunately, studies done in other populations may not apply to homeless persons. Exploring these experiences and attitudes may provide insight into life, health care, and end-of-life (EOL) concerns of this population. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences and attitudes toward death and dying among homeless persons. DESIGN: Qualitative study utilizing focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-three homeless persons recruited from homeless service agencies. MEASUREMENTS: In-depth interviews, which were audiotaped and transcribed. RESULTS: We present seven themes, some of which are previously unreported. Homeless persons described many significant experiences with death and dying, and many participants suffered losses while very young. These encounters influenced participants’ attitudes toward risks and risky behavior: e.g., for some, these experiences provided justification for high-risk behaviors and influenced their behaviors while living on the streets. For others, they may be associated with their homelessness. Finally, these experiences informed their attitudes toward death and dying as well as EOL care; homeless persons believe that care will be poor at the EOL. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study have implications for addressing social services, health promotion, prevention, and EOL care for homeless persons, as well as for others who are poor and disenfranchised

Examining the Relationship Between Genetic Counselors’ Attitudes Toward Deaf People and the Genetic Counseling Session

Given the medical and cultural perspectives on deafness it is important to determine if genetic counselors’ attitudes toward deaf people can affect counseling sessions for deafness genes. One hundred fifty-eight genetic counselors recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv completed an online survey assessing attitudes toward deaf people and scenario-specific comfort levels discussing and offering genetic testing for deafness. Respondents with deaf/Deaf friends or who work in prenatal or pediatric settings had more positive attitudes toward deaf people than those without deaf/Deaf friends or those working in ‘other’ settings. More positive attitudes toward deaf people correlated with higher comfort level talking about genetic testing for the two scenarios involving culturally Deaf clients; and correlated with higher comfort level offering genetic testing to culturally Deaf clients wishing to have a deaf child. Attitudes and comfort level were not correlated in the scenarios involving hearing or non-culturally deaf clients. These results suggest that genetic counselors’ attitudes could affect information provision and the decision making process of culturally Deaf clients. Cultural sensitivity workshops in genetic counseling training programs that incorporate personal interactions with culturally Deaf individuals are recommended. Additional suggestions for fostering personal interactions are provided

Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting

Valuing preferences for the process and outcome of clinical genetics services: a pilot study

Background Understanding preferences for the process and outcomes of clinical genetics services (CGS) is a first step to developing these services appropriately. Aim The aim of this study was to quantify the relative importance of attributes defining the process of service delivery and the patient outcomes of CGS. Methods An online hybrid conjoint analysis discrete choice experiment (CA-DCE) was piloted in a purposive sample (n = 37) of CGS patients and non-patients to identify (i) service attributes (n = 13) perceived to facilitate informed decision making; (ii) relative preferences for six attributes (5 process, 1 outcome: ability to make an informed decision). A three-step approach was taken to link the data from the CA-DCE using hierarchical information integration and ordered logit and multinomial logit models. Marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) values were calculated. Results Services that facilitate informed decision making, with shorter waiting times and involving pre-consultation contact were preferred. Estimated WTP values were: service location (£3170; 95 % CI −391 to 15,098); waiting time (−£1080; 95 % CI −3659 to −603); pre-consultation contact (£7765; 95 % CI 2542–33,937); improved informed decision making (£2254; 95 % CI 775–9866). Conclusion This study suggests that hybrid stated preference experiments offer a practical solution to understanding preferences for how CGS services are delivered

What process attributes of clinical genetics services could maximise patient benefits?

There is limited evidence about what process attributes of clinical genetics services may be highly valued by patients and service providers. The aim in this qualitative grounded theory study was to explore what process attributes may be highly valued by those stakeholders. Seven focus groups (n=33) and nineteen one-to-one interviews were conducted (total sample size=52). Five process attributes were identified as highly valued by patients and health professionals: (1) local and accessible services (2) open access and follow-up, (3) coordinated, tailored family care, (4) quality of the patient–clinician relationship and (5) time to talk. These findings will be useful in designing models of service delivery that could be tested in intervention studies

Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research

Genome-wide sequencing in a research setting has the potential to reveal health-related information of personal or clinical utility for the study participant. There is increasing pressure to return research findings to participants that may not be related to the project aims, particularly when these could be used to prevent disease. Such secondary, unsolicited or 'incidental findings' (IFs) may be discovered unintentionally when interpreting sequence data, or as the result of a deliberate opportunistic screen. This cross-sectional, web-based survey investigated attitudes of 6944 individuals from 75 countries towards returning IFs from genome research. Participants included four relevant stakeholder groups: 4961 members of the public, 533 genetic health professionals, 843 non-genetic health professionals and 607 genomic researchers who were invited via traditional media, social media and professional e-mail list-serve. Treatability and perceived utility of incidental results were deemed important with 98% of stakeholders personally interested in learning about preventable life-threatening conditions. Although there was a generic interest in receiving genomic information, stakeholders did not expect researchers to opportunistically screen for IFs in a research setting. On many items, genetic health professionals had significantly more conservative views compared with other stakeholders. This finding demonstrates a disconnect between the views of those handling the findings of research and those participating in research. Exploring, evaluating and ultimately addressing this disconnect should form a priority for researchers and clinicians alike. This social sciences study offers the largest dataset, published to date, of attitudes towards issues surrounding the return of IFs from sequencing research