Literature DB >> 31549758

Patient assessment of chatbots for the scalable delivery of genetic counseling.

Tara Schmidlen1, Marci Schwartz1, Kristy DiLoreto2, H Lester Kirchner1, Amy C Sturm1.   

Abstract

A barrier to incorporating genomics more broadly is limited access to providers with genomics expertise. Chatbots are a technology-based simulated conversation used in scaling communications. Geisinger and Clear Genetics, Inc. have developed chatbots to facilitate communication with participants receiving clinically actionable genetic variants from the MyCode® Community Health Initiative (MyCode® ). The consent chatbot walks patients through the consent allowing them to opt to receive more or less detail on key topics (goals, benefits, risks, etc.). The follow-up chatbot reminds participants of suggested actions following result receipt and the cascade chatbot can be sent to at-risk relatives by participants to share their genetic test results and facilitate cascade testing. To explore the acceptability, usability, and understanding of the study consent, post-result follow-up and cascade testing chatbots, we conducted six focus groups with MyCode® participants. Sixty-two individuals participated in a focus group (n = 33 consent chatbot, n = 29 follow-up and cascade chatbot). Participants were mostly female (n = 42, 68%), Caucasian (n = 58, 94%), college-educated (n = 33,53%), retirees (n = 38, 61%), and of age 56 years or older (n = 52, 84%). Few participants reported that they knew what a chatbot was (n = 10, 16%), and a small number reported that they had used a chatbot (n = 5, 8%). Qualitative analysis of transcripts and notes from focus groups revealed four main themes: (a) overall impressions, (b) suggested improvements, (c) concerns and limitations, and (d) implementation. Participants supported using chatbots to consent for genomics research and to interact with healthcare providers for care coordination following receipt of genomic results. Most expressed willingness to use a chatbot to share genetic information with relatives. The consent chatbot presents an engaging alternative to deliver content challenging to comprehend in traditional paper or in-person consent. The cascade and follow-up chatbots may be acceptable, user-friendly, scalable approaches to manage ancillary genetic counseling tasks.
© 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cascade; cascade testing; chatbots; communication; education; genetic counseling; informed consent; patient follow-up; service delivery

Year:  2019        PMID: 31549758     DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1169

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


  27 in total

1.  Implementation matters: How patient experiences differ when genetic counseling accompanies the return of genetic variants of uncertain significance.

Authors:  Harsh V Patel; Nora B Henrikson; James D Ralston; Kathleen Leppig; Aaron Scrol; Gail P Jarvik; Shannon DeVange; Eric B Larson; Andrea L Hartzler
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2022-02-21

2.  Creation of a pharmacogenomics patient portal complementary to an existing institutional provider-facing clinical decision support system.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lipschultz; Keith Danahey; Tien M Truong; Emily Schierer; Samuel L Volchenboum; Mark J Ratain; Peter H O'Donnell
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2021-08-27

Review 3.  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

4.  Development and early implementation of an Accessible, Relational, Inclusive and Actionable approach to genetic counseling: The ARIA model.

Authors:  Leslie Riddle; Laura M Amendola; Marian J Gilmore; Claudia Guerra; Barbara Biesecker; Tia L Kauffman; Katherine Anderson; Alan F Rope; Michael C Leo; Mikaella Caruncho; Gail P Jarvik; Benjamin Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard; Galen Joseph
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-12-23

Review 5.  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

6.  An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era.

Authors:  Leila Jamal; Will Schupmann; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.717

7.  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

8.  DNA-based screening and personal health: a points to consider statement for individuals and health-care providers from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Authors:  Lora J H Bean; Maren T Scheuner; Michael F Murray; Leslie G Biesecker; Robert C Green; Kristin G Monaghan; Glenn E Palomaki; Richard R Sharp; Tracy L Trotter; Michael S Watson; Cynthia M Powell
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Wendy Kohlmann; Rachelle Lorenz Chambers; Melody S Goodman; Richard Bradshaw; Priscilla A Chan; Daniel Chavez-Yenter; Sarah V Colonna; Whitney F Espinel; Jessica N Everett; Amanda Gammon; Eric R Goldberg; Javier Gonzalez; Kelsi J Hagerty; Rachel Hess; Kelsey Kehoe; Cecilia Kessler; Kadyn E Kimball; Shane Loomis; Tiffany R Martinez; Rachel Monahan; Joshua D Schiffman; Dani Temares; Katie Tobik; David W Wetter; Devin M Mann; Kensaku Kawamoto; Guilherme Del Fiol; Saundra S Buys; Ophira Ginsburg
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Automated Screening Approaches and Family Communication Methods for Identification of Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Stakeholder Engagement Results from the IMPACT-FH Study.

Authors:  Laney K Jones; Nicole Walters; Andrew Brangan; Catherine D Ahmed; Michael Gatusky; Gemme Campbell-Salome; Ilene G Ladd; Amanda Sheldon; Samuel S Gidding; Mary P McGowan; Alanna K Rahm; Amy C Sturm
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-06-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.