Development of a motivational interviewing genetic counseling intervention to increase cascade cholesterol screening in families of children with familial hypercholesterolemia

Cholesterol Screening in Children: Is a Universal Approach Working?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ample evidence supports that an individual's lifetime risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease correlates to long-term, cumulative exposure to circulating cholesterol levels, beginning in childhood. Selective screening strategies based on family history fail to identify many children with hypercholesterolemia. Universal cholesterol screening in childhood is a worthwhile goal. However, cholesterol screening rates through childhood remain low.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mounting evidence clarifies the barriers to cholesterol screening in children. Specific strategies to foster universal screening in childhood have been proposed.

SUMMARY

We present an overview of the present state of childhood cholesterol screening, summarizing historical and contemporary guidelines and collating evidence of low adherence to current guidelines. We contend that novel approaches to universal cholesterol screening in childhood are warranted, and we present potential opportunities for improvement. We call for new and universal pediatric cholesterol screening guidelines.

The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study's innovative approaches to promote uptake of clinical genetic testing among cancer patients: a study protocol for a 3-arm randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although most cancers are sporadic, germline genetic variants are implicated in 5-10% of cancer cases. Clinical genetic testing identifies pathogenic germline genetic variants for hereditary cancers. The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study is a three-arm randomized clinical trial that aims to test the efficacy of two patient-level behavioral interventions on uptake of cancer genetic testing.

METHODS

The two interventions being tested are (1) a virtual genetics navigator and (2) motivational interviewing by genetic health coaches. Eligible participants are adults with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer who meet the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Participants are recruited through community oncology practices affiliated with the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) and have used the Family Health History Tool (FHHT) to determine testing eligibility. The recruitment goal is 759 participants, who will be randomized to usual care or to either the virtual genetics navigator or the motivational interviewing intervention arms. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals who complete germline genetic testing within 6 months.

DISCUSSION

This study addresses patient-level factors which are associated with the uptake of genetic testing. The study will test two different intervention approaches, both of which can help address the shortage of genetic counselors and improve access to care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan Medical School (HUM00192898) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05162846).

Motivational interviewing for genetic counseling: A unified framework for persuasive and equipoise conversations

Genetic counselors (GCs) have traditionally been trained to adopt a position of equipoise or clinical neutrality. They provide information, answer questions, address barriers, and engage in shared decision-making, but generally, they do not prescribe a genetic test. Historically, GCs have generally been trained not to persuade the ambivalent or resistant patient. More recently, however, there has been discussion regarding when a greater degree of persuasion or directionality may be appropriate within genetic counseling (GC) and what role MI may play in this process. The role for "persuasive GC" is based on the premise that some genetic tests provide actionable information that would clearly benefit patients and families by impacting treatment or surveillance. For other tests, the benefits are less clear as they do not directly impact patient care or the benefits may be more subjective in nature, driven by patient values or psychological needs. For the former, we propose that GCs may adopt a more persuasive clinical approach while for the latter, a more traditional equipoise stance may be more appropriate. We suggest that motivational interviewing (MI) could serve as a unifying counseling model that allows GCs to handle both persuasive and equipoise encounters. For clearly beneficial tests, while directional, the MI encounter can still be non-directive, autonomy-supportive, and patient-centered. MI can also be adapted for equipoise situations, for example, placing less emphasis on eliciting and strengthening change talk as that is more a behavior change strategy than a shared decision-making strategy. The core principles and strategies of MI, such as autonomy support, evocation, open questions, reflective listening, and affirmation would apply to both persuasive and equipoise encounters. Key issues that merit discussion include how best to train GCs both during their initial and post-graduate education.

Application of motivational interviewing strategies with the extended parallel process model to improve risk communication for parents of children with familial hypercholesterolemia

Current genetic counseling practice has not been found to significantly increase risk communication between family members. A more diverse set of genetic counseling approaches may be needed. A genetic counseling intervention based on motivational interviewing principles and the extended parallel process model was utilized to increase cascade outcomes within families with familial hypercholesterolemia, a common, underdiagnosed, and treatable condition. Parents of children with familial hypercholesterolemia were invited to participate in an online pre-survey, single-session genetic counseling intervention, and post-intervention surveys as a part of the CHEERS (Cholesterol Evaluation to Explore Risk Screening) intervention. This study investigated the efficacy of a genetic counselor delivered motivational interviewing intervention and how parents of children with familial hypercholesterolemia react by assessing family member cholesterol screening and risk communication to at-risk relatives. Transcripts were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for change talk using the Motivational Interviewing Skill Code version 2.1. Participant surveys were analyzed for self-reported extended parallel process constructs and motivations. Coincidence analysis was conducted to explore differences between those with and without positive cascade outcomes within 12 months after the intervention. On average, change talk increased during the session in order of the extended parallel process constructs (perceived severity, susceptibility, response efficacy, self-efficacy). Coincidence analysis revealed that 6 of the 7 cases with positive cascade outcomes were explained by either the presence of high change talk during the intervention or presence of positive motivations shortly after, while 5 of the 5 cases without a positive outcome lacked both of these key factors that were associated with cascade outcomes. Results of this study suggest that incorporating motivational interviewing and the extended parallel process model increases change talk and that the presence of either high levels of change talk or positive motivations is associated with positive cascade outcomes.

Outcomes from a pilot genetic counseling intervention using motivational interviewing and the extended parallel process model to increase cascade cholesterol screening

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an inherited condition resulting in increased risk of premature cardiovascular disease. This risk can be reduced with early diagnosis and treatment, but it can be challenging to identify individuals with FH. Cascade screening, the most efficient and cost-effective identification method, requires FH patients to communicate with their at-risk family and encourage them to pursue screening. Beyond FH, patients with conditions increasing disease risk to family members report barriers to the communication process such as insufficient knowledge of the condition and discomfort informing relatives. We conducted a pilot study of a genetic counseling intervention incorporating behavior-change principles from motivational interviewing (MI) and the extended parallel process model (EPPM) to help parents of children with FH overcome these barriers and improve cascade screening rates for FH. Of the 13 participants who completed the intervention and post-intervention surveys, 6 reported contacting and/or screening additional relatives. A large effect size in increasing communication and screening was observed (η²  = 0.20), with the mean percent of at-risk relatives contacted rising from 33% to 45%, and the mean percent screened rising from 32% to 42%. On average, 2.23 new relatives were contacted and 2.46 were screened, per participant, by the end of the study. Direct content analysis revealed that despite the open-ended nature of the goal-setting process, participant goals fell into two categories including those who set goals focused on communicating with and screening family members (n = 9) and those who set goals only focused on managing FH (n = 4). Overall, the communication and screening rates reported after the intervention were higher than previous observations in adult FH populations. These results suggest this EPPM/MI genetic counseling intervention could be a useful tool for increasing communication and cascade screening for FH. With further research on goal-setting techniques, the intervention could be refined and replicated to identify more individuals affected by FH or modified for use with other actionable genetic conditions.

An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era

The field of genetic counseling has grown and diversified since the profession emerged in the early 1970s. In the same period, genomic testing has become more complex, profitable, and widespread. With these developments, the scope of ethical considerations relevant to genetic counseling has expanded. In light of this, we find it helpful to revisit how ethical and relational variables are used to inform genetic counseling practice. Our specific focus is on whether, and to what extent, it is ethically acceptable for genetic counselors to make normative recommendations to patients. This article builds on prior literature that has critiqued nondirectiveness, a concept that has influenced and constrained the modern profession of genetic counseling since its origin. In it, we review scholarly efforts to move beyond nondirectiveness, which we believe privilege patient autonomy at the expense of other important values. We then argue that genetic counselors should favor a more explicit commitment to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as a broader understanding of autonomy and the relational variables that impact genetic counseling. Finally, to translate our arguments into practice, we present a framework of six considerations that genetic counselors should take into account when deciding whether it is ethically acceptable, or even desirable, to make recommendations to patients in certain areas of their work.