Explore the vast range of titles available.

Effective use of genetic and genomic data in cancer prevention and treatment depends on adequate communication with patients and the public. Although relevant empirical work has emerged, the scope and outcomes of this communication research have not been characterized. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of recent published research (2010–2017) on communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic testing (CGT) information. Searches in six databases revealed 9243 unique records; 513 papers were included. Most papers utilized an observational quantitative design; fewer utilized an experimental design. More attention has been paid to outcomes of CGT results disclosure than to decision making regarding CGT uptake or the process of results disclosure. Psychosocial outcomes were most common across studies. This literature has a strong focus on BRCA1/2 , with few papers focused on Lynch syndrome or next-generation technologies. Women, Caucasians, older adults, and those of higher socioeconomic status were overrepresented. Research gaps identified include the need for studies on the process of CGT communication; examining behavioral, decision making, and communication outcomes; and inclusion of diverse populations. Addressing these gaps can help improve the use of genomics in cancer control and reduce disparities in access to and use of CGT.

Genetic test results have medical implications beyond the patient that extend to biological family members. We examined psychosocial and clinical factors associated with communication of genetic test results within families. Women ( N  = 1080) diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger completed an online survey; 920 women that reported prior cancer genetic testing were included in analysis. We examined the proportion of immediate family members to whom they communicated genetic test results, and built multivariable regression models to examine clinical and psychosocial variables associated with the proportion score. Participants were most likely to communicate test results to their mother (83 %) and least likely to their son (45 %). Participants who carried a BRCA mutation (OR = 1.34; 95 % CI = 1.06, 1.70), had higher interest in genomic information (OR = 1.55; 95 % CI = 1.26, 1.91) and lower genetic worry (OR = 0.91; 95 % CI = 0.86, 0.96) communicated genetic test results to a greater proportion of their immediate family members. Participants with a BRCA1/2 mutation shared their genetic test results with more male family members (OR = 1.72; 95 % CI = 1.02, 2.89). Our findings suggest that patients with high worry about genetic risks, low interest in genomic information, or receive a negative genetic test result will likely need additional support to encourage family communication.

Among women diagnosed with breast cancer ≤40 years of age, interest in learning various types of genome sequencing results was more closely related to psychological factors than clinical factors. Abstract The growing importance of genome sequencing means that patients will increasingly face decisions regarding what results they would like to learn. The present study examined psychological and clinical factors that might affect these preferences. 1,080 women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger completed an online survey. We assessed their interest in learning various types of genome sequencing results: risk of preventable disease or unpreventable disease, cancer treatment response, uncertain meaning, risk to relatives’ health, and ancestry/physical traits. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine whether being “very” interested in each result type was associated with clinical factors: BRCA1/2 mutation status, prior genetic testing, family history of breast cancer, and psychological factors: cancer recurrence worry, genetic risk worry, future orientation, health information orientation, and genome sequencing knowledge. The proportion of respondents who were very interested in learning each type of result ranged from 16% to 77%. In all multivariable models, those who were very interested in learning a result type had significantly higher knowledge about sequencing benefits, greater genetic risks worry, and stronger health information orientation compared to those with less interest (p-values < .05). Our findings indicate that high interest in return of various types of genome sequencing results was more closely related to psychological factors. Shared decision-making approaches that increase knowledge about genome sequencing and incorporate patient preferences for health information and learning about genetic risks may help support patients’ informed choices about learning different types of sequencing results.

Reviews of communication studies about cancer-related genetic testing suggest low public awareness and limited clinical discussion. Abstract Cancer-related genetic and genomic testing (CGT) is changing cancer care by personalizing care options, leading to an era of precision medicine. Advances in and increased use of CGT add complexity to clinical communication. This landscape analysis assessed published reviews of communication issues related to CGT and discusses implications for practice and behavioral research. A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted of peer-reviewed literature reviews on studies related to CGT communication published between January 2010 and January 2017, resulting in a final sample of 24 reviews. Reviews were categorized, with overlaps, into four domains across the genetic testing communication continuum. Reviews on CGT-related knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions (n = 8) found that despite substantial public interest, their knowledge and awareness remains low. Providers also reported insufficient knowledge and overall caution, particularly regarding direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Reviews of decision-making about CGT and test uptake (n = 8) identified individual, interpersonal, and systems-level barriers to uptake. Reviews of patient-provider CGT communication (n = 8) revealed limited communication and little empirical research on outcomes of communication or efforts at improving clinical and family communication. There were mixed findings in reviews (n = 15) on the psychological and behavioral impact of CGT, and DTC testing particularly had little effect on behaviors. Taken together, there is very little extant research in CGT in minority and underserved communities. In order for scientific advances in CGT to translate into equitable, patient-centered care, behavioral research, including health literacy and communication, plays critical roles.

ObjectivesThe enormous toll of the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the urgency of collecting and analysing population-scale datasets in real time to monitor and better understand the evolving pandemic. The objectives of this study were to examine the relationship of risk factors to COVID-19 susceptibility and severity and to develop risk models to accurately predict COVID-19 outcomes using rapidly obtained self-reported data.DesignA cross-sectional study.SettingAncestryDNA customers in the USA who consented to research.ParticipantsThe AncestryDNA COVID-19 Study collected self-reported survey data on symptoms, outcomes, risk factors and exposures for over 563 000 adult individuals in the USA in just under 4 months, including over 4700 COVID-19 cases as measured by a self-reported positive test.ResultsWe replicated previously reported associations between several risk factors and COVID-19 susceptibility and severity outcomes, and additionally found that differences in known exposures accounted for many of the susceptibility associations. A notable exception was elevated susceptibility for men even after adjusting for known exposures and age (adjusted OR=1.36, 95% CI=1.19 to 1.55). We also demonstrated that self-reported data can be used to build accurate risk models to predict individualised COVID-19 susceptibility (area under the curve (AUC)=0.84) and severity outcomes including hospitalisation and critical illness (AUC=0.87 and 0.90, respectively). The risk models achieved robust discriminative performance across different age, sex and genetic ancestry groups within the study.ConclusionsThe results highlight the value of self-reported epidemiological data to rapidly provide public health insights into the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.

Family communication is a complex communication process and the complexity increases when the topic of communication is genetic information. While there is a range of genetic information available in the clinical setting, the focus of this dissertation is hereditary cancer syndromes. Genetic information related to hereditary cancer syndromes has specific cancer screening recommendations and other medical decisions that impact not only the patient but the biological family members, which necessitates understanding family communication in this context.Chapter One provides an overarching introduction with cancer incidence, mortality, and cancer screening recommendations, descriptions of genetic testing and possible test results, prior literature on family communication of genetic information, and finally, theoretical frameworks. Chapter Two examines how research on family communication of genetic test results is often a theoretical and provides an overview of three communication theories with suggestions for future application. The theories included are the goals-plans-action model, family communication patterns, and expectation violations theory. Chapter Three analyzed psychosocial and clinical predictors of family communication for 920 women who had reported prior cancer genetic testing and were diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. This study has been previously published, and results from this study informed the development of the study in Chapter Four. Chapter Four examined the family communication of women with prior negative BRCA1/2 test results that were eligible for a multigene panel. Two theoretical frameworks (e.g., the goals-plans-action model and theory of planned behavior) were used for predicting family communication. Finally, Chapter Five presents a conclusion section with integrated discussion and future directions.

Background The increasing use of genome sequencing with patients raises a critical communication challenge: return of secondary findings. While the issue of what sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. Methods We conducted 60 semistructured, in‐person individual interviews to examine preferences for the return of different types of genome sequencing results and the reasons underlying these preferences. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. Results The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person. Participants also emphasized the importance of a results return process tailored to a patient's individual circumstances and one that she has a voice in determining. Conclusions A critical goal for future transdisciplinary research including clinicians, patients, and communication researchers may be to develop decision‐making processes to help patients make decisions about how they would like various sequencing results returned. While the issue of what genome sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person.