Literature DB >> 34665896

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

Julia Wynn1, Hila Milo Rasouly2, Tania Vasquez-Loarte2, Akilan M Saami1,3, Robyn Weiss2, Sonja I Ziniel4, Paul S Appelbaum5, Ellen Wright Clayton6, Kurt D Christensen7,8, David Fasel9, Robert C Green10,11, Heather S Hain12, Margaret Harr12, Christin Hoell13, Iftikhar J Kullo14, Kathleen A Leppig15, Melanie F Myers16, Joel E Pacyna17, Emma F Perez11, Cynthia A Prows16, Alanna Kulchak Rahm18, Gemme Campbell-Salome18, Richard R Sharp17, Maureen E Smith13, Georgia L Wiesner19, Janet L Williams18, Carrie L Blout Zawatsky11, Ali G Gharavi2, Wendy K Chung1,2, Ingrid A Holm20,21.   

Abstract

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.
© 2021 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cascade testing; communication; family; population screening; predictive genetic testing

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34665896      PMCID: PMC8983417          DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.717


  39 in total

1.  Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing and Interpretation for the eMERGE III Network.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Authors:  Angela R Bradbury; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica M Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 3.  Family Communication About Genetic Risk of Hereditary Cardiomyopathies and Arrhythmias: an Integrative Review.

Authors:  Lisa L Shah; Sandra Daack-Hirsch
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of a complex genetic counselling intervention to improve family communication.

Authors:  Jan Hodgson; Sylvia Metcalfe; Clara Gaff; Susan Donath; Martin B Delatycki; Ingrid Winship; Loane Skene; MaryAnne Aitken; Jane Halliday
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  The Long and Short of Genetic Counseling Summary Letters: A Case-control Study.

Authors:  J Roggenbuck; R Temme; D Pond; J Baker; K Jarvis; M Liu; S Dugan; N J Mendelsohn
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Psychosocial and Clinical Factors Associated with Family Communication of Cancer Genetic Test Results among Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer at a Young Age.

Authors:  Ashley Elrick; Sato Ashida; Jennifer Ivanovich; Sarah Lyons; Barbara B Biesecker; Melody S Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-07-16       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 7.  Communicating risk with relatives in a familial hypercholesterolemia cascade screening program: a summary of the evidence.

Authors:  Melanie Allison
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Nurs       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.083

8.  Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network.

Authors:  Christin Hoell; Julia Wynn; Luke V Rasmussen; Keith Marsolo; Sharon A Aufox; Wendy K Chung; John J Connolly; Robert R Freimuth; David Kochan; Hakon Hakonarson; Margaret Harr; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Philip E Lammers; Kathleen A Leppig; Nancy D Leslie; Melanie F Myers; Richard R Sharp; Maureen E Smith; Cynthia A Prows
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 8.864

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.  Limitations and Pitfalls of Using Family Letters to Communicate Genetic Risk: a Qualitative Study with Patients and Healthcare Professionals.

Authors:  Sandi Dheensa; Anneke Lucassen; Angela Fenwick
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 2.537

View more
  1 in total

1.  The Impact of Proband Indication for Genetic Testing on the Uptake of Cascade Testing Among Relatives.

Authors:  Tara J Schmidlen; Sara L Bristow; Kathryn E Hatchell; Edward D Esplin; Robert L Nussbaum; Eden V Haverfield
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 4.772

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.