Literature DB >> 28345121

Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports.

Kevin Sweet1,2, Amy C Sturm3,4, Tara Schmidlen5, Joseph McElroy6, Laura Scheinfeldt5,7, Kandamurugu Manickam8, Erynn S Gordon5,9, Shelly Hovick10, J Scott Roberts11, Amanda Ewart Toland3, Michael Christman5.   

Abstract

There has been very limited study of patients with chronic disease receiving potentially actionable genomic based results or the utilization of genetic counselors in the online result delivery process. We conducted a randomized controlled trial on 199 patients with chronic disease each receiving eight personalized and actionable complex disease reports online. Primary study aims were to assess the impact of in-person genomic counseling on 1) causal attribution of disease risk, 2) personal awareness of disease risk, and 3) perceived risk of developing a particular disease. Of 98 intervention arm participants (mean age = 57.8; 39% female) randomized for in-person genomic counseling, 76 (78%) were seen. In contrast, control arm participants (n = 101; mean age = 58.5; 54% female) were initially not offered genomic counseling as part of the study protocol but were able to access in-person genomic counseling, if they requested it, 3-months post viewing of at least one test report and post-completion of the study-specific follow-up survey. A total of 64 intervention arm and 59 control arm participants completed follow-up survey measures. We found that participants receiving in-person genomic counseling had enhanced objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution for multiple complex diseases. Genomic counseling was associated with lowered participant causal beliefs in genetic influence across all eight diseases, compared to control participants. Our findings also illustrate that for the majority of diseases under study, intervention arm participants believed they knew their genetic risk status better than control arm subjects. Disease risk was modified for the majority during genomic counseling, due to the assessment of more comprehensive family history. In conclusion, for patients receiving personalized and actionable genomic results through a web portal, genomic counseling enhanced their objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution to multiple common diseases. These results support the development of additional genomic counseling interventions to ensure a high level of patient comprehension and improve patient-centered health outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Causal beliefs; Complex disease; Counseling; Genetic; Genomic; Risk perception

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28345121      PMCID: PMC5617760          DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0073-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  58 in total

1.  A new definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors' Task Force report.

Authors:  Robert Resta; Barbara Bowles Biesecker; Robin L Bennett; Sandra Blum; Susan Estabrooks Hahn; Michelle N Strecker; Janet L Williams
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Coming full circle: a reciprocal-engagement model of genetic counseling practice.

Authors:  Patricia McCarthy Veach; Dianne M Bartels; Bonnie S Leroy
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-13       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Time-limit tests: estimating their reliability and degree of speeding.

Authors:  L J CRONBACH; W G WARRINGTON
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  1951-06       Impact factor: 2.500

4.  Responses to online GSTM1 genetic test results among smokers related to patients with lung cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Suzanne C O'Neill; Della Brown White; Gerold Bepler; Lori Bastian; Isaac M Lipkus; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Parental history is an independent risk factor for coronary artery disease: the Framingham Study.

Authors:  R H Myers; D K Kiely; L A Cupples; W B Kannel
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  "It's not like judgment day": public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information.

Authors:  Erynn S Gordon; Georgia Griffin; Lisa Wawak; Hauchie Pang; Sarah E Gollust; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families III: risk perception and screening.

Authors:  Aideen McInerney-Leo; Donald Hadley; Ronald G Kase; Therese R Giambarresi; Jeffery P Struewing; Barbara Bowles Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-10-15       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  The role of disease perceptions and results sharing in psychological adaptation after genetic susceptibility testing: the REVEAL Study.

Authors:  Sato Ashida; Laura M Koehly; J Scott Roberts; Clara A Chen; Susan Hiraki; Robert C Green
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-07-28       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Patient satisfaction with cancer genetic counseling: a psychometric analysis of the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale.

Authors:  Tiffani A DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Bryn D Mars; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride; Christopher Wade; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert Reid; Eric Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  9 in total

1.  Counselees' Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study.

Authors:  Kevin Sweet; Shelly Hovick; Amy C Sturm; Tara Schmidlen; Erynn Gordon; Barbara Bernhardt; Lisa Wawak; Karen Wernke; Joseph McElroy; Laura Scheinfeldt; Amanda E Toland; J S Roberts; Michael Christman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Impact of SLCO1B1 Pharmacogenetic Testing on Patient and Healthcare Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; Sojeong Chun; Sanjay Advani; Sophie A Ludin; Jason G Smith; Elaine C Alligood
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 6.875

3.  EMR documentation of physician-patient communication following genomic counseling for actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomic results.

Authors:  K Sweet; A C Sturm; T Schmidlen; S Hovick; J Peng; K Manickam; A Salikhova; J McElroy; L Scheinfeldt; A E Toland; J S Roberts; M Christman
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 4.438

4.  Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing.

Authors:  Tara Schmidlen; Amy C Sturm; Shelly Hovick; Laura Scheinfeldt; J Scott Roberts; Lindsey Morr; Joseph McElroy; Amanda E Toland; Michael Christman; Julianne M O'Daniel; Erynn S Gordon; Barbara A Bernhardt; Kelly E Ormond; Kevin Sweet
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 5.  A primer to clinical genome sequencing.

Authors:  James R Priest
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.856

6.  Clinical pharmacogenomics: patient perspectives of pharmacogenomic testing and the incidence of actionable test results in a chronic disease cohort.

Authors:  Chandrama Mukherjee; Kevin M Sweet; Jasmine A Luzum; Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul; Michael F Christman; Joseph P Kitzmiller
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 2.512

7.  GeneLiFT: A novel test to facilitate rapid screening of genetic literacy in a diverse population undergoing genetic testing.

Authors:  Hila Milo Rasouly; Nicole Cuneo; Maddalena Marasa; Natalia DeMaria; Debanjana Chatterjee; Jacqueline J Thompson; David A Fasel; Julia Wynn; Wendy K Chung; Paul Appelbaum; Chunhua Weng; Suzanne Bakken; Ali G Gharavi
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-12-26       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Early Outcome Data Assessing Utility of a Post-Test Genomic Counseling Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Precision Health.

Authors:  Amy C Sturm; Tara Schmidlen; Laura Scheinfeldt; Shelly Hovick; Joseph P McElroy; Amanda E Toland; J Scott Roberts; Kevin Sweet
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2018-07-25

9.  A comparison of genome cohort participants' genetic knowledge and preferences to receive genetic results before and after a genetics workshop.

Authors:  Kayono Yamamoto; Atsushi Shimizu; Fumie Aizawa; Hiroshi Kawame; Tomoharu Tokutomi; Akimune Fukushima
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 3.172

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.