Literature DB >> 29356820

Web Platform vs In-Person Genetic Counselor for Return of Carrier Results From Exome Sequencing: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Barbara B Biesecker1, Katie L Lewis2, Kendall L Umstead1, Jennifer J Johnston2, Erin Turbitt1, Kristen P Fishler2, John H Patton2, Ilana M Miller2, Alexis R Heidlebaugh1, Leslie G Biesecker2.   

Abstract

Importance: A critical bottleneck in clinical genomics is the mismatch between large volumes of results and the availability of knowledgeable professionals to return them. Objective: To test whether a web-based platform is noninferior to a genetic counselor for educating patients about their carrier results from exome sequencing. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized noninferiority trial conducted in a longitudinal sequencing cohort at the National Institutes of Health from February 5, 2014, to December 16, 2016, was used to compare the web-based platform with a genetic counselor. Among the 571 eligible participants, 1 to 7 heterozygous variants were identified in genes that cause a phenotype that is recessively inherited. Surveys were administered after cohort enrollment, immediately following trial education, and 1 month and 6 months later to primarily healthy postreproductive participants who expressed interest in learning their carrier results. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied. Interventions: A web-based platform that integrated education on carrier results with personal test results was designed to directly parallel disclosure education by a genetic counselor. The sessions took a mean (SD) time of 21 (10.6), and 27 (9.3) minutes, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes and noninferiority margins (δNI) were knowledge (0 to 8, δNI = -1), test-specific distress (0 to 30, δNI = +1), and decisional conflict (15 to 75, δNI = +6).
Results: After 462 participants (80.9%) provided consent and were randomized, all but 3 participants (n = 459) completed surveys following education and counseling; 398 (86.1%) completed 1-month surveys and 392 (84.8%) completed 6-month surveys. Participants were predominantly well-educated, non-Hispanic white, married parents; mean (SD) age was 63 (63.1) years and 246 (53.6%) were men. The web platform was noninferior to the genetic counselor on outcomes assessed at 1 and 6 months: knowledge (mean group difference, -0.18; lower limit of 97.5% CI, -0.63; δNI = -1), test-specific distress (median group difference, 0; upper limit of 97.5% CI, 0; δNI = +1), and decisional conflict about choosing to learn results (mean group difference, 1.18; upper limit of 97.5% CI, 2.66; δNI = +6). There were no significant differences between the genetic counselors and web-based platform detected between modes of education delivery in disclosure rates to spouses (151 vs 159; relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.64-1.69; P > .99), children (103 vs 117; RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85-1.36; P = .59), or siblings (91 vs 78; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.94-1.46; P = .18). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial demonstrates noninferiority of web-based return of carrier results among postreproductive, mostly healthy adults. Replication studies among younger and more diverse populations are needed to establish generalizability. Yet return of results via a web-based platform may be sufficient for subsets of test results, reserving genetic counselors for return of results with a greater health threat. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00410241.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29356820      PMCID: PMC5885925          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  34 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.  A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire.

Authors:  David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  An interactive computer program can effectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  M J Green; B B Biesecker; A M McInerney; D Mauger; N Fost
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001-09-15

4.  Education about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: patient preferences for a computer program or genetic counselor.

Authors:  M J Green; A M McInerney; B B Biesecker; N Fost
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001-09-15

Review 5.  A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Outcomes of Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Barbara A Athens; Samantha L Caldwell; Kendall L Umstead; Philip D Connors; Ethan Brenna; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  The ClinSeq Project: piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine.

Authors:  Leslie G Biesecker; James C Mullikin; Flavia M Facio; Clesson Turner; Praveen F Cherukuri; Robert W Blakesley; Gerard G Bouffard; Peter S Chines; Pedro Cruz; Nancy F Hansen; Jamie K Teer; Baishali Maskeri; Alice C Young; Teri A Manolio; Alexander F Wilson; Toren Finkel; Paul Hwang; Andrew Arai; Alan T Remaley; Vandana Sachdev; Robert Shamburek; Richard O Cannon; Eric D Green
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 9.043

7.  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

8.  NSGC practice guideline: prenatal screening and diagnostic testing options for chromosome aneuploidy.

Authors:  K L Wilson; J L Czerwinski; J M Hoskovec; S J Noblin; C M Sullivan; A Harbison; M W Campion; K Devary; P Devers; C N Singletary
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Characterizing Participants in the ClinSeq Genome Sequencing Cohort as Early Adopters of a New Health Technology.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Paul K J Han; Gillian W Hooker; William M P Klein; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Standards for the Reporting of Genetic Counseling Interventions in Research and Other Studies (GCIRS): an NSGC Task Force Report.

Authors:  Gillian W Hooker; D Babu; M F Myers; H Zierhut; M McAllister
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 2.537

View more
  22 in total

1.  Outcomes of Counseling after Education about Carrier Results: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Kendall L Umstead; Jennifer J Johnston; Ilana M Miller; Lydia J Thompson; Kristen P Fishler; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Roles of attitudes and injunctive norms in decisional conflict and disclosure following receipt of genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Allecia E Reid; Rebecca A Ferrer; Sanjana Kadirvel; Barbara B Biesecker; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; William M P Klein
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  User engagement with web-based genomics education videos and implications for designing scalable patient education materials.

Authors:  Julia Wynn; Wei Wei; Xinhang Li; Yat S So; Suzanne Bakken; Chunhua Weng; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

4.  The role of future-oriented affect in engagement with genomic testing results.

Authors:  Arielle S Gillman; Irina A Iles; William M P Klein; Barbara B Biesecker; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; Rebecca A Ferrer
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2021-09-04

5.  Genetic counselors on the frontline of precision health.

Authors:  Michael J Bamshad; Pilar L Magoulas; Karin M Dent
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 3.908

6.  Perceptions of uncertainties about carrier results identified by exome sequencing in a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Kendall L Umstead; Paul K J Han; Katie L Lewis; Ilana M Miller; Charlotte L Hepler; Lydia J Thompson; Tyra G Wolfsberg; Anh-Dao Nguyen; Mark T Fredriksen; Gretchen Gibney; Erin Turbitt; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 7.  Genetic Counseling and the Central Tenets of Practice.

Authors:  Barbara Biesecker
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 6.915

8.  The impact of the number of tests presented and a provider recommendation on decisions about genetic testing for cancer risk.

Authors:  Marci L B Schwartz; William M P Klein; Lori A H Erby; Christy H Smith; Debra L Roter
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-09-18

Review 9.  A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research.

Authors:  Barbara B Biesecker; Sarah E Lillie; Laura M Amendola; Katherine E Donohue; Kelly M East; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Marian J Gilmore; Veronica Greve; Billie Liangolou; Julianne M O'Daniel; Jacqueline A Odgis; Shannon Rego; Bradley Rolf; Sarah Scollon; Sabrina A Suckiel; Jamilyn Zepp; Galen Joseph
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-12-05       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.