Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Background Genetic testing to identify germline high-risk pathogenic variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes is increasingly part of the breast cancer diagnostic pathway. Novel patient-centred pathways may offer opportunity to expand capacity and reduce turnaround time. Methods We recruited 1140 women with unselected breast cancer to undergo germline genetic testing through the BRCA-DIRECT pathway (which includes a digital platform, postal saliva sampling and a genetic counsellor telephone helpline). Ahead of consenting to the test, participants were randomised to receive information about genetic testing digitally (569/1140, 49.9%) or via a pre-test genetic counselling consultation (571/1140, 50.1%). Results 1001 (87.8%) participants progressed to receive their pre-test information and consented to testing. The primary outcome, uptake of genetic testing, was higher amongst participants randomised to receive digital information compared with those randomised to a pre-test genetic counselling consultation (90.8% (95% CI: 88.5% to 93.1%) vs 84.7% (95% CI: 81.8% to 87.6%), p  = 0.002, adjusted for participant age and site). Non-inferiority was observed in relation to patient knowledge, anxiety, and satisfaction. Conclusions Findings demonstrate that standardised, digital information offers a non-inferior alternative to conventional genetic counselling, and an end-to-end patient-centred, digital pathway (supported by genetic counselling hotline) could feasibly be implemented into breast oncology settings. Clinical trial registration The study is registered with, and protocol available on, ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04842799).

BackgroundNewer approaches to genetic counselling are required for population-based testing. We compare traditional face-to-face genetic counselling with a DVD-assisted approach for population-based BRCA1/2 testing.MethodsA cluster-randomised non-inferiority trial in the London Ashkenazi Jewish population.Inclusion criteriaAshkenazi Jewish men/women >18 years; exclusion criteria: (a) known BRCA1/2 mutation, (b) previous BRCA1/2 testing and (c) first-degree relative of BRCA1/2 carrier. Ashkenazi Jewish men/women underwent pre-test genetic counselling prior to BRCA1/2 testing in the Genetic Cancer Prediction through Population Screening trial (ISRCTN73338115). Genetic counselling clinics (clusters) were randomised to traditional counselling (TC) and DVD-based counselling (DVD-C) approaches. DVD-C involved a DVD presentation followed by shorter face-to-face genetic counselling. Outcome measures included genetic testing uptake, cancer risk perception, increase in knowledge, counselling time and satisfaction (Genetic Counselling Satisfaction Scale). Random-effects models adjusted for covariates compared outcomes between TC and DVD-C groups. One-sided 97.5% CI was used to determine non-inferiority. Secondary outcomes: relevance, satisfaction, adequacy, emotional impact and improved understanding with the DVD; cost-minimisation analysis for TC and DVD-C approaches.Results936 individuals (clusters=256, mean-size=3.6) were randomised to TC (n=527, clusters=134) and DVD-C (n=409, clusters=122) approaches. Groups were similar at baseline, mean age=53.9 (SD=15) years, women=66.8%, men=33.2%. DVD-C was non-inferior to TC for increase in knowledge (d=−0.07; lower 97.5% CI=−0.41), counselling satisfaction (d=−0.38, 97.5% CI=1.2) and risk perception (d=0.08; upper 97.5% CI=3.1). Group differences and CIs did not cross non-inferiority margins. DVD-C was equivalent to TC for uptake of genetic testing (d=−3%; lower/upper 97.5% CI −7.9%/1.7%) and superior for counselling time (20.4 (CI 18.7 to 22.2) min reduction (p<0.005)). 98% people found the DVD length and information satisfactory. 85–89% felt it improved their understanding of risks/benefits/implications/purpose of genetic testing. 95% would recommend it to others. The cost of genetic counselling for DVD-C=£7787 and TC=£17 307. DVD-C resulted in cost savings=£9520 (£14/volunteer).ConclusionsDVD-C is an effective, acceptable, non-inferior, time-saving and cost-efficient alternative to TC.Trial registration numberISRCTN 73338115.

An effective way to reduce emotional distress is by sharing negative emotions with others. This is why counseling with a virtual counselor is an emerging methodology, where the sharer can consult freely anytime and anywhere without having to fear being judged. To improve counseling effectiveness, most studies so far have focused on designing verbal compassion for virtual counselors. However, recent studies showed that virtual counselors’ nonverbal compassion through eye contact, facial mimicry, and head-nodding also have significant impact on the overall counseling experience. To verify this, we designed the virtual counselor’s nonverbal compassion and examined its effects on counseling effectiveness (i.e., reduce the intensity of anger and improve general affect). A total of 40 participants were recruited from the university community. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of two virtual counselor conditions: a neutral virtual counselor condition without nonverbal compassion and a compassionate virtual counselor condition with nonverbal compassion (i.e., eye contact, facial mimicry, and head-nodding). Participants shared their anger-inducing episodes with the virtual counselor for an average of 16.30 min. Note that the virtual counselor was operated by the Wizard-of-Oz method without actually being technically implemented. Results showed that counseling with a compassionate virtual counselor reduced the intensity of anger significantly more than counseling with a neutral virtual counselor ( F (1, 37) = 30.822, p  < 0.001, η p 2  = 0.454). In addition, participants who counseled with a compassionate virtual counselor responded that they experienced higher empathy than those who counseled with a neutral virtual counselor ( p  < 0.001). These findings suggest that nonverbal compassion through eye contact, facial mimicry, and head-nodding of the virtual counselor makes the participants feel more empathy, which contributes to improving the counseling effectiveness by reducing the intensity of anger.

As a mega-biobank linked to a national healthcare system, the Million Veteran Program (MVP) can directly improve the health care of participants. To determine the feasibility and outcomes of returning medically actionable genetic results to MVP participants, the program launched the MVP Return of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study, with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as an exemplar actionable condition. The MVP-ROAR Study consists of a completed single-arm pilot phase and an ongoing randomized clinical trial (RCT), in which MVP participants are recontacted and invited to receive clinical confirmatory gene sequencing testing and a telegenetic counseling intervention. The primary outcome of the RCT is 6-month change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between participants receiving results at baseline and those receiving results after 6 months. The pilot developed processes to identify and recontact participants nationally with probable pathogenic variants in low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) on the MVP genotype array, invite them to clinical confirmatory gene sequencing, and deliver a telegenetic counseling intervention. Among participants in the pilot phase, 8 (100%) had active statin prescriptions after 6 months. Results were shared with 16 first-degree family members. Six-month ΔLDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) after the genetic counseling intervention was −37 mg/dL (95% CI: −12 to −61; P = .03). The ongoing RCT will determine between-arm differences in this primary outcome. While underscoring the importance of clinical confirmation of research results, the pilot phase of the MVP-ROAR Study marks a turning point in MVP and demonstrates the feasibility of returning genetic results to participants and their providers. The ongoing RCT will contribute to understanding how such a program might improve patient health care and outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04178122.

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.

IntroductionThe high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey.Methods and analysisWe will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20–035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT04725565.

Background Studies have consistently indicated that the majority of individuals meeting the US Prevention Services Task Force guidelines for genetic testing have not had genetic counseling or testing. Despite increased availability and lower costs of multiplex cancer gene panels, there remains a gap in genetics services that has not been addressed by the current care delivery models. Lower cost of DNA sequencing with online patient-initiated ordering could increase test availability, but the ideal quantity and delivery method of patient education is not known. We hypothesized that online genetic education and testing with access to board certified genetic counselors could improve access to genetic testing while maintaining test quality and clinical utility. The MAGENTA (MAking GENetic Testing Accessible) trial is a nationwide randomized study designed to compare the effectiveness of online genetic education with pre- and post-test telephone genetic counseling to three potentially more accessible alternative approaches: online genetic education with optional telephone counseling, online genetic education with required pre-test telephone genetic counseling, and online genetic education with required post-test telephone genetic counseling. Methods 3000 women nationwide will undergo genetic testing for 19 hereditary cancer genes. This is a randomized four-arm non-inferiority study with equal randomization. The four study arms were selected to independently assess the delivery of genetic information both before and after genetic testing (pre-test and post-test) by either requiring telephone genetic counseling or providing only online education with optional telephone counseling. Patients have post-test telephone counseling when testing positive for a pathogenic inherited mutation in all four arms. Surveys measuring psychological, behavioral and cognitive state are completed online at baseline, 3 months, 12 months and 24 months post-results disclosure. The primary study outcome is cancer-risk distress at 3 months post-result disclosure. Discussion This trial will assess the use of a genetic service model using online access and electronic education, while evaluating the need for personal pre- and post-test genetic counseling. Data from this study may lead to increased options for delivery of genetic testing and possibly increase access to genetic testing. Identifying more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility will allow targeted cancer prevention. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02993068 (registered December 14, 2016).

Genomic carrier screening can identify more disease-associated variants than existing carrier screening methodologies, but its utility from patients’ perspective is not yet established. A randomized controlled trial for preconception genomic carrier screening provided an opportunity to understand patients’ decisions about whether to accept or decline testing. We administered a survey to potential genomic carrier screening recipients who declined participation ( N  = 240) to evaluate their reasons for doing so. Two thirds of women declined participation. We identified major themes describing reasons these individuals declined to participate; the most common were time limitation, lack of interest, not wanting to know the information, and potential cause of worry or anxiety. Most women eligible for genomic carrier screening indicated that their reasons for opting out were due to logistical issues rather than opposing the rationale for testing. As expanded carrier screening and genomic sequencing become a more routine part of clinical care, it is anticipated there will be variable uptake from individuals for this testing. Thus, the advancement of clinical carrier screening from single genes, to expanded screening panels, to an exome- or genome-wide platform, will require approaches that respect individual choice to receive genetic testing for reproductive risk assessment.

IntroductionGenetic testing is used across medical disciplines leading to unprecedented demand for genetic services. This has resulted in excessive waitlists and unsustainable pressure on the standard model of genetic healthcare. Alternative models are needed; e-health tools represent scalable and evidence-based solution. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Navigator, an interactive patient-centred digital platform that supports the collection of medical and family history, provision of pregenetic and postgenetic counselling and return of genetic testing results across paediatric and adult settings.Methods and analysisWe will evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Navigator combined with usual care by a genetics clinician (physician or counsellor) to usual care alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and thirty participants (adults patients or parents of paediatric patients) eligible for genetic testing through standard of care will be recruited across Ontario genetics clinics. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Navigator for pretest and post-test genetic counselling and results disclosure in conjunction with their clinician. Participants randomised into the control arm will receive usual care, that is, clinician-delivered pretest and post-test genetic counselling, and results disclosure. The primary outcome is participant distress 2 weeks after test results disclosure. Secondary outcomes include knowledge, decisional conflict, anxiety, empowerment, quality of life, satisfaction, acceptability, digital health literacy and health resource use. Quantitative data will be analysed using statistical hypothesis tests and regression models. A subset of participants will be interviewed to explore user experience; data will be analysed using interpretive description. A cost-effectiveness analysis will examine the incremental cost of the Navigator compared with usual care per unit reduction in distress or unit improvement in quality of life from public payer and societal perspectives.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario. Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT06455384.