Literature DB >> 31916645

Exploring relatives' perceptions of participation, ethics, and communication in a patient-driven study for hereditary cancer variant reclassification.

Ginger J Tsai1, Annie T Chen2, Lauren T Garrett1, Wylie Burke3, Deborah J Bowen3, Brian H Shirts1.   

Abstract

Effective communication of genetic information within families depends on several factors. Few studies explore intra-familial communication of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results or active collaboration between family members to classify VUS. Our qualitative study aimed to describe the experiences of individuals asked by family members to participate in the FindMyVariant study, a patient-driven family study which aimed to reclassify a clinically identified familial VUS in a hereditary cancer gene. We collected feedback from 56 individuals from 21 different families through phone interviews and written correspondence, transcribed the interviews, and performed thematic analysis on all text. We describe themes from three main topics: participation, ethical considerations, and study impacts. Participation in the FindMyVariant study, defined as returning a sample for targeted genotyping, was motivated by convenience and a desire to help the family, oneself, and science. Relatives were generally responsive to invitations to participate in FindMyVariant from another family member. Those who declined to participate did so due to concerns about research program confidentiality rather than family dynamics. No major ethical issues arose in response to the patient-driven study structure, and no major changes in stress and anxiety, medical care, or behavior occurred. Participation in patient-driven familial VUS classification studies has a neutral or positive impact on family health communication. While it is important to design studies to minimize familial coercion, intra-familial confidentiality breaches, and misinterpretation of genetic results, these were not major concerns among relatives in this study. Clinicians and laboratories may consider encouraging familial communication about genetic variants using family members as liaisons.
© 2020 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Communication; attitudes; family; family communication; family history; family studies; genetic counseling; genetic testing; genetics communication; health behavior; health communication; patient-driven; perceptions; qualitative research; qualitative study; risk perception; variant classification; variant of uncertain significance (VUS)

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31916645      PMCID: PMC7343600          DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1215

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


  21 in total

Review 1.  Family communication about genetic risk: the little that is known.

Authors:  Brenda J Wilson; Karen Forrest; Edwin R van Teijlingen; Lorna McKee; Neva Haites; Eric Matthews; Sheila A Simpson
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2004

2.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.

Authors:  Anthony J Viera; Joanne M Garrett
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.756

3.  Using a family systems approach to investigate cancer risk communication within melanoma families.

Authors:  Julie N Harris; Jennifer Hay; Alan Kuniyuki; Maryam M Asgari; Nancy Press; Deborah J Bowen
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.894

4.  Patient goals, motivations, and attitudes in a patient-driven variant reclassification study.

Authors:  Ginger J Tsai; Lauren Thomas Garrett; Sukh Makhnoon; Deborah J Bowen; Wylie Burke; Brian H Shirts
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-12-31       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Experiences of patients seeking to participate in variant of uncertain significance reclassification research.

Authors:  Sukh Makhnoon; Lauren Thomas Garrett; Wylie Burke; Deborah J Bowen; Brian H Shirts
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2018-07-19

6.  Sharing BRCA1/2 test results with first-degree relatives: factors predicting who women tell.

Authors:  Andrea Farkas Patenaude; Michel Dorval; Lisa S DiGianni; Katherine A Schneider; Anu Chittenden; Judy E Garber
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Communication about genetic testing in families of male BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers: patterns, priorities and problems.

Authors:  N Hallowell; A Ardern-Jones; R Eeles; C Foster; A Lucassen; C Moynihan; M Watson
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.438

8.  To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk.

Authors:  K Forrest; S A Simpson; B J Wilson; E R van Teijlingen; L McKee; N Haites; E Matthews
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.438

9.  Communicating genetic test results within the family: Is it lost in translation? A survey of relatives in the randomized six-step study.

Authors:  Mary B Daly; Susan Montgomery; Ruth Bingler; Karen Ruth
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome: family communication and motivation.

Authors:  Celine H M Leenen; Mariska den Heijer; Conny van der Meer; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam; Anja Wagner
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.375

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Experiences of individuals with a variant of uncertain significance on genetic testing for hereditary cancer risks: a mixed method systematic review.

Authors:  Danielle Gould; Rachel Walker; Grace Makari-Judson; Memnun Seven
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-07-12
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.