Explore the vast range of titles available.

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

Telegenetics—genetic counseling via live videoconferencing—can improve access to cancer genetic counseling (CGC) in underserved areas, but studies on cancer telegenetics have not applied randomized methodology or assessed cost. We report cost, patient satisfaction and CGC attendance from a randomized trial comparing telegenetics with in-person CGC among individuals referred to CGC in four rural oncology clinics. Participants ( n  = 162) were randomized to receive CGC at their local oncology clinic in-person or via telegenetics. Cost analyses included telegenetics system; mileage; and personnel costs for genetic counselor, IT specialist, and clinic personnel. CGC attendance was tracked via study database. Patient satisfaction was assessed 1 week post-CGC via telephone survey using validated scales. Total costs were $106 per telegenetics patient and $244 per in-person patient. Patient satisfaction did not differ by group on either satisfaction scale. In-person patients were significantly more likely to attend CGC than telegenetics patients (89 vs. 79 %, p  = 0.03), with bivariate analyses showing an association between lesser computer comfort and lower attendance rate (Chi-square = 5.49, p  = 0.02). Our randomized trial of telegenetics vs. in-person counseling found that telegenetics cost less than in-person counseling, with high satisfaction among those who attended. This study provides support for future randomized trials comparing multiple service delivery models on longer-term psychosocial and behavioral outcomes.

To update the congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to steroid 21-hydroxylase deficiency clinical practice guideline published by the Endocrine Society in 2010. The writing committee presents updated best practice guidelines for the clinical management of congenital adrenal hyperplasia based on published evidence and expert opinion with added considerations for patient safety, quality of life, cost, and utilization.

Historically, medical geneticists and genetic counselors have provided the majority of genetic services. Advances in technology, reduction in testing costs, and increased public awareness have led to a growing demand for genetic services in both clinical and direct-to-consumer spaces. Recent and anticipated changes in the workforce of genetic counselors and medical geneticists require a reexamination of the way we educate health-care providers and the means by which we provide access to genetic services. The time is ripe for rapid growth of genetic and genomic services, but to capitalize on these opportunities, we need to consider a variety of educational mechanisms to reach providers both within and beyond the traditional genetic counseling and medical genetics sectors, including nurses, physician assistants, and nongenetics physicians. This article summarizes the educational efforts underway in each of these professions.

Cascade testing is the process of offering genetic counseling and testing to at-risk relatives of an individual who has been diagnosed with a genetic condition. It is critical for increasing the identification rates of individuals with these conditions and the uptake of appropriate preventive health services. The process of cascade testing is highly varied in clinical practice, and a comprehensive understanding of factors that hinder or enhance its implementation is necessary to improve this process. We conducted a systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators for cascade testing and searched PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles published from the databases’ inception to November 2018. Thirty articles met inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators identified from these studies at the individual-level were organized into the following categories: (1) demographics, (2) knowledge, (3) attitudes, beliefs, and emotional responses of the individual, and (4) perceptions of relatives, relatives’ responses, and attitudes toward relatives. At the interpersonal-level, barriers and facilitators were categorized as (1) family communication-, support- and dynamics-, and (2) provider-factors. Finally, barriers at the environmental-level relating to accessibility of genetic services were also identified. Our findings suggest that several individual, interpersonal and environmental factors may play a role in cascade testing. Future studies to further investigate these barriers and facilitators are needed to inform future interventions for improving the implementation of cascade testing for genetic conditions in clinical practice.

The profession of genetic counseling (also called genetic counselling in many countries) began nearly 50 years ago in the United States, and has grown internationally in the past 30 years. While there have been many papers describing the profession of genetic counseling in individual countries or regions, data remains incomplete and has been published in diverse journals with limited access. As a result of the 2016 Transnational Alliance of Genetic Counseling (TAGC) conference in Barcelona, Spain, and the 2017 World Congress of Genetic Counselling in the UK, we endeavor to describe as fully as possible the global state of genetic counseling as a profession. We estimate that in 2018 there are nearly 7000 genetic counselors with the profession established or developing in no less than 28 countries.

Background Screening and counseling for genetic conditions is an increasingly important part of primary care practice, particularly given the paucity of genetic counselors in the United States. However, primary care physicians (PCPs) often have an inadequate understanding of evidence-based screening; communication approaches that encourage shared decision-making; ethical, legal, and social implication (ELSI) issues related to screening for genetic mutations; and the basics of clinical genetics. This study explored whether an interactive, web-based genetics curriculum directed at PCPs in non-academic primary care settings was superior at changing practice knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors when compared to a traditional educational approach, particularly when discussing common genetic conditions. Methods One hundred twenty one PCPs in California and Pennsylvania physician practices were randomized to either an Intervention Group (IG) or Control Group (CG). IG physicians completed a 6 h interactive web-based curriculum covering communication skills, basics of genetic testing, risk assessment, ELSI issues and practice behaviors. CG physicians were provided with a traditional approach to Continuing Medical Education (CME) (clinical review articles) offering equivalent information. Results PCPs in the Intervention Group showed greater increases in knowledge compared to the Control Group. Intervention PCPs were also more satisfied with the educational materials, and more confident in their genetics knowledge and skills compared to those receiving traditional CME materials. Intervention PCPs felt that the web-based curriculum covered medical management, genetics, and ELSI issues significantly better than did the Control Group, and in comparison with traditional curricula. The Intervention Group felt the online tools offered several advantages, and engaged in better shared decision making with standardized patients, however, there was no difference in behavior change between groups with regard to increases in ELSI discussions between PCPs and patients. Conclusion While our intervention was deemed more enjoyable, demonstrated significant factual learning and retention, and increased shared decision making practices, there were few differences in behavior changes around ELSI discussions. Unfortunately, barriers to implementing behavior change in clinical genetics is not unique to our intervention. Perhaps the missing element is that busy physicians need systems-level support to engage in meaningful discussions around genetics issues. The next step in promoting active engagement between doctors and patients may be to put into place the tools needed for PCPs to easily access the materials they need at the point-of-care to engage in joint discussions around clinical genetics.

The demand for genetic testing of hereditary breast cancer genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 has continued to increase with the lowering costs of testing, raised awareness in the general public, and implications for breast cancer treatment when a patient is identified as having a germline pathogenic variant. Historically within Australia, patients affected by high genetic risk breast cancers have been referred to a familial cancer centre (FCC) for assessment and testing, resulting in wait times for an appointment for pre- and post-test genetic counselling and an increased demand on the public-funded FCC. To improve patient access and pace of genetic testing, as well as refocus FCC resources, a mainstream clinical genetic testing program was rolled out in September 2017 through the Parkville FCC (PFCC) in Australia at 10 hospital sites. This program enables specialist doctors of eligible patients affected by breast cancer to arrange genetic testing directly at an oncology/surgical appointment and follow up the results as part of the patients’ routine clinical care. In this model, the specialist doctor is responsible for any treatment implications of the genetic test result, and the PFCC is responsible for result interpretation, future cancer risk, family cascade testing and segregation testing where warranted. To date the program has had successful uptake, a notable pathogenic variant detection rate, reduced the burden on the PFCC enabling a reallocation of resources and has streamlined the process of genetic testing for eligible patients. Investigation into the patient and clinician experiences of the mainstream program is required.

Uncertainty is increasingly discussed during genetic counseling due to innovative techniques, e.g., multigene panel testing. Discussions about uncertainty may impact counselees variably, depending on counselors’ communication styles. Ideally, the discussion of uncertainty enables counselees to cope with uncertainty and make well-informed decisions about testing. We examined the impact of how counselors convey uncertainty and address counselees’ uncertainty, and explored the role of individual characteristics. Therefore, a randomized controlled experiment using videos was conducted. Former counselees (N = 224) viewed one video depicting a genetic consultation about multigene panel testing. The extent of counselors’ communication of uncertainty (comprehensive vs. the essence) and their response to counselees’ uncertainty expressions (providing information vs. providing space for emotions vs. normalizing and counterbalancing uncertainty) were systematically manipulated. Individual characteristics, e.g., uncertainty tolerance, were assessed, as well as outcome variables (primary outcomes: feelings of uncertainty and information recall). No effects were found on primary outcomes. Participants were most satisfied when the essence was communicated, combined with providing information or providing space responses (p = 0.002). Comprehensive information resulted in less perceived steering toward testing (p = 0.005). Participants with lower uncertainty tolerance or higher trait anxiety were less confident about their understanding when receiving comprehensive information (p = 0.025). Participants seeking information experienced less uncertainty (p = 0.003), and trusted their counselor more (p = 0.028), when the counselor used information providing responses. In sum, the impact of discussing uncertainty primarily depends on individual characteristics. Practical guidelines should address how to tailor the discussion of uncertainty.

Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide updated guidance for the genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy and for an approach to manage secondary findings from cardiomyopathy genes. The genetic bases of the primary cardiomyopathies (dilated, hypertrophic, arrhythmogenic right ventricular, and restrictive) have been established, and each is medically actionable; in most cases established treatments or interventions are available to improve survival, reduce morbidity, and enhance quality of life. Methods A writing group of cardiologists and genetics professionals updated guidance, first published in 2009 for the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), in a collaboration with the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Each recommendation was assigned to teams of individuals by expertise, literature was reviewed, and recommendations were decided by consensus of the writing group. Recommendations for family history, phenotype screening of at-risk family members, referral to expert centers as needed, genetic counseling, and cardiovascular therapies, informed in part by phenotype, are presented in the HFSA document. Results A genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy is indicated with a cardiomyopathy diagnosis, which includes genetic testing. Guidance is also provided for clinical approaches to secondary findings from cardiomyopathy genes. This is relevant as cardiomyopathy is the phenotype associated with 27% of the genes on the ACMG list for return of secondary findings. Recommendations herein are considered expert opinion per current ACMG policy as no systematic approach to literature review was conducted. Conclusion Genetic testing is indicated for cardiomyopathy to assist in patient care and management of at-risk family members.