Literature DB >> 30846854

Development of patient "profiles" to tailor counseling for incidental genomic sequencing results.

Chloe Mighton1,2, Lindsay Carlsson3, Marc Clausen2, Selina Casalino2, Salma Shickh1,2, Laura McCuaig1,2, Esha Joshi1,2, Seema Panchal4, Tracy Graham5, Melyssa Aronson1,4, Carolyn Piccinin4, Laura Winter-Paquette1,4, Kara Semotiuk1,4, Justin Lorentz5, Talia Mancuso5, Karen Ott5, Yael Silberman5, Christine Elser3, Andrea Eisen5, Raymond H Kim3,4,6, Jordan Lerner-Ellis1,4, June C Carroll1,4, Emily Glogowski7, Kasmintan Schrader8, Yvonne Bombard9,10.   

Abstract

Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the myriad of IR and variation in patients' preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as "planners" and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because "knowledge is power". Concerned Individuals defined themselves as "anxious," and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to "un-know" information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: "hopefully [GS will] be negative, too. And then I can rest easy". These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30846854      PMCID: PMC6777527          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0352-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  5 in total

Review 1.  Digital health-enabled genomics: Opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Amy C Sturm; Alicia Y Zhou; Amy A Lemke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 11.043

2.  How aging of the global population is changing oncology.

Authors:  Yan Fei Gu; Frank P Lin; Richard J Epstein
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2021-12-13

3.  Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Jemar R Bather; Brianne M Daly; Daniel Chavez-Yenter; Alexis Vega; Wendy K Kohlmann
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 4.772

4.  Validation of the multidimensional impact of Cancer Risk Assessment Questionnaire to assess impact of waiting for genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Megan Best; Christine Napier; Timothy Schlub; Nicci Bartley; Barbara Biesecker; Mandy Ballinger; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.955

5.  Stakeholder Perspectives on Navigating Evidentiary and Decision Uncertainty in Precision Oncology.

Authors:  Samantha Pollard; Jessica Dunne; Sarah Costa; Dean A Regier
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-01-01
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.