Experiences and concerns of patients with recurrent attacks of acute hepatic porphyria: A qualitative study

Background: The acute hepatic porphyrias (AHPs) are rare inborn errors of heme biosynthesis, characterized clinically by life-threatening acute neurovisceral attacks. Patients with recurrent attacks have a decreased quality of life (QoL); however, no interactive assessment of these patients' views has been reported. We conducted guided discussions regarding specific topics, to explore patients' disease experience and its impact on their lives. / Methods: Sixteen AHP patients experiencing acute attacks were recruited to moderator-led online focus groups. Five groups (3–4 patients each) were conducted and thematic analyses to identify, examine, and categorize patterns in the data was performed. / Results: All patients identified prodromal symptoms that began days prior to acute severe pain; the most common included confusion (“brain fog"), irritability, and fatigue. Patients avoided hospitalization due to prior poor experiences with physician knowledge of AHPs or their treatment. All patients used complementary and alternative medicine treatments to avoid hospitalization or manage chronic pain and 81% reported varying degrees of effectiveness. All patients indicated their disease impacted personal relationships due to feelings of isolation and difficulty adjusting to the disease's limitations. / Conclusion: Patients with recurrent attacks recognize prodromal warning symptoms, attempt to avoid hospitalization, turn to alternative treatments, and have markedly impaired QoL. Counseling and individualized support is crucial for AHP patients with recurrent attacks

Decision-making, attitudes, and understanding among patients and relatives invited to undergo genome sequencing in the 100,000 Genomes Project: A multisite survey study

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess decisions, attitudes, and understanding of participants (patients, parents, relatives) having genome sequencing for rare disease diagnosis. METHODS: This study involved a cross-sectional observational survey with participants in the 100,000 Genomes Project. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 51% (504/978). Most participants self-reported that they had decided to undergo genome sequencing (94%) and that this was an informed decision (84%) with low decisional conflict (95%). Most self-reported that they had chosen to receive additional findings (88%) and that this was an informed decision (89%) with low decisional conflict (95%). Participants were motivated more by the desire to help others via research than by the belief it would help them obtain a diagnosis (Z = 14.23, P = 5.75 × 10-46), although both motivations were high. Concerns were relatively few but, where expressed, were more about the potential psychological impact of results than data sharing/access (Z = 9.61, P = 7.65 × 10-22). Concerns were higher among male, Asian or Asian British, and more religious participants. General and context-specific understanding of genome sequencing were both moderately high (means 5.2/9.0 and 22.5/28.0, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings are useful to inform consent guidelines and clinical implementation of genome sequencing

Opening the "black box" of informed consent appointments for genome sequencing: a multisite observational study

PURPOSE: Little is known about how health-care professionals communicate with patients about consenting to genome sequencing. We therefore examined what topics health-care professionals covered and what questions patients asked during consent conversations. METHODS: Twenty-one genome sequencing consent appointments were audio recorded and analyzed. Participants were 35 individuals being invited to participate in the 100,000 Genomes Project (14 participants with rare diseases, 21 relatives), and 10 health-care professionals ("consenters"). RESULTS: Two-thirds of participants' questions were substantive (e.g., genetics and inheritance); one-third administrative (e.g., filling in the consent form). Consenters usually (19/21) emphasized participant choice about secondary findings, but less often (13/21) emphasized the uncertainty about associated disease risks. Consenters primarily used passive statements and closed-ended, rather than open-ended, questions to invite participants' questions and concerns. In two appointments, one parent expressed negative or uncertain views about secondary findings, but after discussion with the other parent opted to receive them. CONCLUSION: Health-care professionals need to be prepared to answer patients' questions about genetics to facilitate genome sequencing consent. Health-care professionals' education also needs to address how to effectively listen and elicit each patient's questions and views, and how to discuss uncertainty around the disease risks associated with secondary findings

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: A survey study

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals’ (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one’s own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced. METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and ‘others’. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process

Attitudes towards a programme of risk assessment and stratified management for ovarian cancer: a focus group study of UK South Asians' perspectives

OBJECTIVE: Population-based risk assessment, using genetic testing and the provision of appropriate risk management, could lead to prevention, early detection and improved clinical management of ovarian cancer (OC). Previous research with mostly white British participants found positive attitudes towards such a programme. The current study aimed to explore the attitudes of South Asian (SA) women and men in the UK with the aim of identifying how best to implement such a programme to minimise distress and maximise uptake. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative focus group discussions. SETTING: Community centres across North London and Luton. PARTICIPANTS: 49 women and 13 men who identified as SA (Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi), which constitutes the largest non-European ethnic minority group in the UK. METHODS: Seven community-based focus groups were held. Group discussions were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Awareness and knowledge of OC symptoms and specific risk factors was low. The programme was acceptable to most participants and attitudes to it were generally positive. Participants' main concerns related to receiving a high-risk result following the genetic test. Younger women may be more cautious of genetic testing, screening or risk-reducing surgery due to the importance of marriage and childbearing in their SA cultures. CONCLUSIONS: A crucial first step to enable implementation of population-based genetic risk assessment and management in OC is to raise awareness of OC within SA communities. It will be important to engage with the SA community early on in programme implementation to address their specific concerns and to ensure culturally tailored decision support