Literature DB >> 30580287

Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

Joel E Pacyna1, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf2, Sarah M Jenkins3, Erica J Sutton1, Caroline Horrow1, Iftikhar J Kullo4, Richard R Sharp1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed the decision-making of individuals pursuing genomic sequencing without a requirement for pretest genetic counselling. We sought to describe the extent to which individuals who decline genetic counselling reported decisional conflict or struggled to make a decision to pursue genomic testing.
METHODS: We administered a 100-item survey to 3037 individuals who consented to the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical study, a genomic medicine implementation study supported by the National Institutes of Health (USA) eMERGE consortium. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study and time required to reach a decision.
RESULTS: We received 2895 completed surveys (response rate=95.3%), and of these respondents 97.8% completed the decisional conflict scale in its entirety. A majority of individuals (63%) had minimal or no decisional conflict about the pursuit of genomic sequencing and were able to reach a decision quickly (78%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified several characteristics associated with decisional conflict, including lower education, lower health literacy, lower self-efficacy in coping, lack of prior experience with genetic testing, not discussing study participation with a family member or friend, and being male.
CONCLUSION: As genomic sequencing is used more widely, genetic counselling resources may not be sufficient to meet demand. Our results challenge the notion that all individuals need genetic counselling in order to make an informed decision about genomic sequencing. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ELSI; genetic counseling; genomic implementation; informed consent

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30580287      PMCID: PMC6486421          DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105577

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Genet        ISSN: 0022-2593            Impact factor:   6.318


  49 in total

1.  Randomized Trial of Telegenetics vs. In-Person Cancer Genetic Counseling: Cost, Patient Satisfaction and Attendance.

Authors:  Adam H Buchanan; Santanu K Datta; Celette Sugg Skinner; Gail P Hollowell; Henry F Beresford; Thomas Freeland; Benjamin Rogers; John Boling; P Kelly Marcom; Martha B Adams
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-04-03       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Anita Y Kinney; Laurie E Steffen; Barbara H Brumbach; Wendy Kohlmann; Ruofei Du; Ji-Hyun Lee; Amanda Gammon; Karin Butler; Saundra S Buys; Antoinette M Stroup; Rebecca A Campo; Kristina G Flores; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Decision making after BRCA genetic testing. Down the road of transition.

Authors:  Laurie M Connors; Nicoleta Voian; Yi Shi; Robin M Lally; Stephen Edge
Journal:  Clin J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.027

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

5.  Group genetic counseling: An alternate service delivery model in a high risk prenatal screening population.

Authors:  Mireille Cloutier; Lauren Gallagher; Claire Goldsmith; Salwa Akiki; Nick Barrowman; Shawna Morrison
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.050

6.  Effect of financial strain on mortality in community-dwelling older women.

Authors:  Sarah L Szanton; Jerilyn K Allen; Roland J Thorpe; Teresa Seeman; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Linda P Fried
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.077

7.  The role of numeracy on client knowledge in BRCA genetic counseling.

Authors:  David B Portnoy; Debra Roter; Lori H Erby
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-10-23

8.  A computer-tailored intervention to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening among African American men.

Authors:  Jennifer D Allen; Anshu P Mohllajee; Rachel C Shelton; Bettina F Drake; Dana R Mars
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2008-10-20

9.  The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study, a Mayo Clinic Genomic Medicine Implementation Study: Design and Initial Results.

Authors:  Iftikhar J Kullo; Janet Olson; Xiao Fan; Merin Jose; Maya Safarova; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Erin Winkler; David C Kochan; Sara Snipes; Joel E Pacyna; Meaghan Carney; Christopher G Chute; Jyoti Gupta; Sheethal Jose; Eric Venner; Mullai Murugan; Yunyun Jiang; Magdi Zordok; Medhat Farwati; Maraisha Philogene; Erica Smith; Gabriel Q Shaibi; Pedro Caraballo; Robert Freimuth; Noralane M Lindor; Richard Sharp; Stephen N Thibodeau
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 7.616

10.  Informed decision-making among students analyzing their personal genomes on a whole genome sequencing course: a longitudinal cohort study.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Michael D Linderman; Andrew Kasarskis; Ali Bashir; George A Diaz; Milind C Mahajan; Hardik Shah; Melissa Wasserstein; Randi E Zinberg; Micol Zweig; Eric E Schadt
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 11.117

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  A Practical Guide to Genetic Testing for Kidney Disorders of Unknown Etiology.

Authors:  Abraham W Aron; Neera K Dahl; Whitney Besse
Journal:  Kidney360       Date:  2022-07-08

2.  Returning negative results from large-scale genomic screening: Experiences from the eMERGE III network.

Authors:  Kelsey Stuttgen Finn; John Lynch; Sharon Aufox; Sarah Bland; Wendy Chung; Colin Halverson; Scott Hebbring; Christin Hoell; Ingrid Holm; Gail Jarvik; Iftikhar Kullo; Kathleen Leppig; Melanie Myers; Cynthia Prows; Hila Milo Rasouly; Rajbir Singh; Georgia Weisner; Janet Williams; Julia Wynn; Maureen Smith; Richard Sharp
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2020-12-08       Impact factor: 2.578

3.  Genetic counseling for patients with positive genomic screening results: Considerations for when the genetic test comes first.

Authors:  Marci L B Schwartz; Adam H Buchanan; Miranda L G Hallquist; Christopher M Haggerty; Amy C Sturm
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.717

4.  Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis.

Authors:  Andrew G Shuman; Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Madison Kent; Chris D Krenz; Collin Brummel; Paul L Swiecicki; J Chad Brenner
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2022-05-03

5.  "Who Doesn't Like Receiving Good News?" Perspectives of Individuals Who Received Genomic Screening Results by Mail.

Authors:  Annika T Beck; Erica J Sutton; Carolyn P Y Chow; Susan H Curtis; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-04-21

6.  Increasing access to individualized medicine: a matched-cohort study examining Latino participant experiences of genomic screening.

Authors:  Joel E Pacyna; Gabriel Q Shaibi; Alex Lee; Jamie O Byrne; Idali Cuellar; Erica J Sutton; Valentina Hernandez; Noralane M Lindor; Davinder Singh; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 8.822

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.