Limitations and pitfalls of using family letters to communicate genetic risk: a qualitative study with patients and healthcare professionals

European genetic testing guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals (HCPs) discuss the familial implications of any test with a patient and offer written material to help them share the information with family members. Giving patients these “family letters” to alert any relatives of their risk has become part of standard practice and has gone relatively unquestioned over the years. Communication with at-risk relatives will become an increasingly pressing issue as mainstream and routine practice incorporates broad genome tests and as the number of findings potentially relevant to relatives increases. This study therefore explores problems around the use of family letters to communicate about genetic risk. We conducted 16 focus groups with 80 HCPs, and 35 interviews with patients, recruited from across the UK. Data were analyzed thematically and we constructed four themes: 1) HCPs writing family letters: how to write them and why?, 2) Patients’ issues with handing out family letters, 3) Dissemination becomes an uncontrolled form of communication, and 4) When the relative has the letter, is the patient’s and HCP’s duty discharged? We conclude by suggesting alternative and supplementary methods of communication, for example through digital tools, and propose that in comparison to communication by family letter, direct contact by HCPs might be a more appropriate and successful option

How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence

Supporting consultands to communicate risk information with their relatives is key to obtaining the full benefits of genetic health care. To understand how health-care professionals address this issue in clinical practice and what interventions are used specifically to assist consultands in their communication of genetic information to appropriate relatives, we conducted a systematic review. Four electronic databases and four subject-specific journals were searched for papers published, in English, between January 1997 and May 2014. Of 2926 papers identified initially, 14 papers met the inclusion criteria for the review and were heterogeneous in design, setting and methods. Thematic data analysis has shown that dissemination of information within families is actively encouraged and supported by professionals. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) direct contact from genetic services: sending letters to relatives of mutation carriers; (2) professionals' encouragement of initially reluctant consultands to share relevant information with at-risk relatives and (3) assisting consultands in communicating genetic information to their at-risk relatives, which included as subthemes (i) psychoeducational guidance and (ii) written information aids. Findings suggest that professionals' practice and interventions are predicated on the need to proactively encourage family communication. We discuss this in the context of what guidance of consultands by professionals might be appropriate, as best practices to facilitate family communication, and of the limits to non-directiveness in genetic counselling

Health-care professionals' responsibility to patients' relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research

Purpose: the extent of the responsibility of health-care professionals (HCPs) to ensure that patients’ relatives are told of their risk is unclear. Current international guidelines take confidentiality to the individual patient as the default position, but some suggest that disclosure could be default and genetic information could be conceptualized as familial.Methods: our systematic review and synthesis of 17 studies explored the attitudes of HCPs, patients, and the public regarding the extent of HCPs’ responsibility to relatives with respect to disclosure.Results: health-care professionals generally felt a responsibility to patients’ relatives but perceived a variety of reasons why it would be difficult to act on this responsibility. Public/patient views were more wide-ranging. Participants identified several competing and overlapping arguments for and against HCP disclosure: guidelines do not permit/mandate it, privacy, medical benefit, impact on family dynamics, quality of communication, and respecting autonomy.Conclusion: we argue that HCPs can sometimes share genetic information without breaching confidentiality and that they could factor into their considerations the potential harm to family dynamics of nondisclosure. However, we need more nuanced research about their responsibilities to relatives, particularly as genomic tests are used more frequently in clinical practic