1
|
Bechaz A, Sexton A, Gill G, Karidakis M. How do women talk about self-funded breast cancer genetic testing?: Small stories and stance-taking strategies. J Genet Couns 2024; 33:906-910. [PMID: 37667416 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1782] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2023] [Revised: 08/20/2023] [Accepted: 08/22/2023] [Indexed: 09/06/2023]
Abstract
Genetic testing for breast cancer genes is an experience which is inextricably linked with health communication practices and the broader social context in which it occurs. Linguistic approaches can provide perspective on how women seeking self-funded BRCA1/2 gene testing represent their experiences, knowledge, roles, choices and emotions through the way they talk. A discursive constructionist epistemology and narrative theoretical framework informed the applied linguistics methodology. Analysis of 'small stories' and stance-taking was performed on eight transcripts of audio-recorded telephone interviews with women at low to moderate risk of carrying BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants who self-funded genetic testing. We found a high prevalence of 'small stories' including accounts of events, hypotheticals, habitual narratives, and stories which combined multiple genres. Stance-taking was a means by which participants constructed personal identities in the conversational context, such as that of a responsible person. Via stance-taking strategies, participants also actively negotiated the conversational agenda, for example expressing different degrees of alignment with the interviewer's orientation towards emotions. This study provides a basis for recognizing linguistic markers in genetic counseling interactions about genetic testing for breast cancer genes. Enhanced awareness of client language choice, and the ways in which small stories and stance can signify the client's evaluation of experience and choices, alignment with the genetic counselor's questions/statements, and investment in the conversation, has potential to improve the therapeutic interaction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alan Bechaz
- School of Languages and Linguistics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Adrienne Sexton
- Genomic Medicine & Familial Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital & Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, The University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Medicine - Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Gulvir Gill
- Genetics in the North East, The Mercy Hospital for Women, Victoria, Heidelberg, Australia
| | - Maria Karidakis
- School of Languages and Linguistics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Austin S, Hanson EN, Delacroix E, Bacon E, Rice J, Gerido LH, Rizzo E, Pleasant V, Stoffel EM, Griggs JJ, Resnicow K. Impact of barriers and motivators on intention and confidence to undergo hereditary cancer genetic testing. J Genet Couns 2024. [PMID: 38803214 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2023] [Revised: 05/13/2024] [Accepted: 05/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024]
Abstract
Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes can provide lifesaving information allowing for individualized cancer screening, prevention, and treatment. However, the determinants, both barriers and motivators, of genetic testing intention are not well described. A survey of barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to adult patients eligible for genetic testing based on cancer diagnosis who previously have not had genetic testing (n = 201). Associations between barriers/motivators with testing intention and confidence were examined first by correlation followed by multivariable linear regression model holding constant potential covariates. Seven barrier items from two domains (logistics and genetic testing knowledge) were found to significantly negatively correlate with genetic testing intention. Unexpectedly, three barrier items had significant positive correlation with genetic testing intention; these were related to family worry (passing a condition on to future generations) and testing knowledge (needing more information on the genetic testing process and what it has to offer). Ten barrier items had significant negative correlation with confidence to get a genetic test and encompassed four domains: stigma, insurance/genetic discrimination, knowledge, and cost. All motivator items were associated with intention to get a genetic test, while none were associated with confidence. Multivariable analysis yielded six total barriers (five from the knowledge domain, one from cost domain) and two motivators (relieved to know and treatment impact) that were significantly associated with genetic testing intention or confidence when controlling for demographic characteristics. These findings indicate the need for tailored interventions to amplify motivating factors and counter-message barriers to enhance patient motivation and confidence to undergo testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Austin
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Erika N Hanson
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Emerson Delacroix
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Elizabeth Bacon
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - John Rice
- University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | | | - Elizabeth Rizzo
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Versha Pleasant
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Elena M Stoffel
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Jennifer J Griggs
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Ken Resnicow
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Borle K, Kopac N, Dragojlovic N, Llorian ER, Lynd LD. Defining Need Amid Exponential Change: Conceptual Challenges in Workforce Planning for Clinical Genetic Services. Clin Ther 2023; 45:695-701. [PMID: 37516568 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.07.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2022] [Revised: 07/10/2023] [Accepted: 07/10/2023] [Indexed: 07/31/2023]
Abstract
Rapid growth in the volume of referrals to clinical genetics services in many countries during the past 15 years makes workforce planning a critical policy tool in ensuring that the capacity of the clinical genetics workforce is large enough to meet current and future needs. This article explores the distinctive challenges of workforce planning in clinical genetics and provides recommendations for addressing these challenges using a needs-based planning approach. Specifically, at least 3 features complicate efforts to estimate the need for clinical genetic services: the difficulty in linking many clinical genetic services to concrete health outcomes; the rapidly changing nature of genetic medicine, which creates intrinsic uncertainty about the appropriate level of service; and the heightened relevance of patient preferences in this context. Our recommendations call for needs-based planning studies to include an explicit definition of necessary care, to be flexible in considering nonhealth benefits, to err on the side of including services currently funded by health systems even when evidence about outcomes is limited, and to use scenario analysis and expert input to explore the impact of uncertainty about patients' preferences and future technologies on estimates of workforce requirements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kennedy Borle
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Nicola Kopac
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Nick Dragojlovic
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Elisabet Rodriguez Llorian
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Larry D Lynd
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcomes Sciences, Providence Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hanson EN, Delacroix E, Austin S, Carr G, Kidwell KM, Bacon E, Gerido LH, Griggs JJ, Stoffel EM, Resnicow K. Psychosocial factors impacting barriers and motivators to cancer genetic testing. Cancer Med 2023; 12:9945-9955. [PMID: 36808717 PMCID: PMC10166953 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Revised: 02/03/2023] [Accepted: 02/07/2023] [Indexed: 02/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Only a small proportion of patients who qualify for clinical genetic testing for cancer susceptibility get testing. Many patient-level barriers contribute to low uptake. In this study, we examined self-reported patient barriers and motivators for cancer genetic testing. METHODS A survey comprised of both new and existing measures related to barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to patients with a diagnosis of cancer at a large academic medical center. Patients who self-reported receiving a genetic test were included in these analyses (n = 376). Responses about emotions following testing as well as barriers and motivators prior to getting testing were examined. Group differences in barriers and motivators by patient demographic characteristics were examined. RESULTS Being assigned female at birth was associated with increased emotional, insurance, and family concerns as well as increased health benefits compared to patients assigned male at birth. Younger respondents had significantly higher emotional and family concerns compared to older respondents. Recently diagnosed respondents expressed fewer concerns about insurance implications and emotional concerns. Those with a BRCA-related cancer had higher scores on social and interpersonal concerns scale than those with other cancers. Participants with higher depression scores indicated increased emotional, social and interpersonal, and family concerns. CONCLUSIONS Self-reported depression emerged as the most consistent factor influencing report of barriers to genetic testing. By incorporating mental health resources into clinical practice, oncologists may better identify those patients who might need more assistance following through with a referral for genetic testing and the response afterwards.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erika N. Hanson
- Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Emerson Delacroix
- School of Public Health, Department of Health Behavior and EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Sarah Austin
- Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Grant Carr
- School of Public Health, Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Kelley M. Kidwell
- School of Public Health, Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Elizabeth Bacon
- Center for Health Communications Research, Rogel Cancer Center, Michigan MedicineAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Lynette Hammond Gerido
- School of Public Health, Department of Health Behavior and EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Jennifer J. Griggs
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/OncologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
- School of Public Health, Department of Health Management and PolicyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
- University of Michigan, Institute for Healthcare Policy and InnovationAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Elena M. Stoffel
- Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
- University of Michigan, Institute for Healthcare Policy and InnovationAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Ken Resnicow
- School of Public Health, Department of Health Behavior and EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
- University of Michigan, Institute for Healthcare Policy and InnovationAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
"It Will Lead You to Make Better Decisions about Your Health"-A Focus Group and Survey Study on Women's Attitudes towards Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening and Personalised Risk Assessments. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:9181-9198. [PMID: 36547133 PMCID: PMC9776908 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29120719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Revised: 11/22/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Singapore launched a population-based organised mammography screening (MAM) programme in 2002. However, uptake is low. A better understanding of breast cancer (BC) risk factors has generated interest in shifting from a one-size-fits-all to a risk-based screening approach. However, public acceptability of the change is lacking. Focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 54 women (median age 37.5 years) with no BC history. Eight online sessions were transcribed, coded, and thematically analysed. Additionally, we surveyed 993 participants in a risk-based MAM study on how they felt in anticipation of receiving their risk profiles. Attitudes towards MAM (e.g., fear, low perceived risk) have remained unchanged for ~25 years. However, FGD participants reported that they would be more likely to attend routine mammography after having their BC risks assessed, despite uncertainty and concerns about risk-based screening. This insight was reinforced by the survey participants reporting more positive than negative feelings before receiving their risk reports. There is enthusiasm in knowing personal disease risk but concerns about the level of support for individuals learning they are at higher risk for breast cancer. Our results support the empowering of Singaporean women with personal health information to improve MAM uptake.
Collapse
|
6
|
Sarki M, Ming C, Aissaoui S, Bürki N, Caiata-Zufferey M, Erlanger TE, Graffeo-Galbiati R, Heinimann K, Heinzelmann-Schwarz V, Monnerat C, Probst-Hensch N, Rabaglio M, Zürrer-Härdi U, Chappuis PO, Katapodi MC. Intention to Inform Relatives, Rates of Cascade Testing, and Preference for Patient-Mediated Communication in Families Concerned with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome: The Swiss CASCADE Cohort. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14071636. [PMID: 35406409 PMCID: PMC8997156 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14071636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2022] [Revised: 03/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Cascade screening for Tier 1 cancer genetic conditions is a significant public health intervention because it identifies untested relatives of individuals known to carry pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS). The Swiss CASCADE is a family-based, open-ended cohort, including carriers of HBOC- and LS-associated pathogenic variants and their relatives. This paper describes rates of cascade screening in relatives from HBOC- and LS- harboring families, examines carriers' preferences for communication of testing results, and describes theory-based predictors of intention to invite relatives to a cascade screening program. Information has been provided by 304 index cases and 115 relatives recruited from September 2017 to December 2021. On average, 10 relatives per index case were potentially eligible for cascade screening. Approximately 65% of respondents wanted to invite relatives to the cohort, and approximately 50% indicated a preference for patient-mediated communication of testing results, possibly with the assistance of digital technology. Intention to invite relatives was higher for first- compared to second- and third-degree relatives, but was not different between syndromes or based on relatives' gender. The family environment and carrying pathogenic variants predicts intention to invite relatives. Information helps optimize delivery of tailored genetic services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahesh Sarki
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, 4055 Basel, Switzerland; (M.S.); (C.M.)
| | - Chang Ming
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, 4055 Basel, Switzerland; (M.S.); (C.M.)
| | - Souria Aissaoui
- Breast Center, Cantonal Hospital Fribourg, 1752 Fribourg, Switzerland;
- GENESUPPORT, The Breast Centre, Hirslanden Clinique de Grangettes, 1224 Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Nicole Bürki
- Women’s Clinic, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland; (N.B.); (V.H.-S.)
| | - Maria Caiata-Zufferey
- Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, 6928 Manno, Switzerland;
| | | | | | - Karl Heinimann
- Institute for Medical Genetics and Pathology, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland;
- Research Group Human Genomics, Department of Biomedicine, University of Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
| | | | - Christian Monnerat
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital of Jura, 2800 Delemont, Switzerland;
| | - Nicole Probst-Hensch
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, University of Basel, 4123 Allschwil, Switzerland;
| | - Manuela Rabaglio
- Department of Medical Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland;
| | - Ursina Zürrer-Härdi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland;
| | - Pierre Olivier Chappuis
- Unit of Oncogenetics, Division of Oncology, University Hospitals of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland;
- Division of Genetic Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Maria C. Katapodi
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, 4055 Basel, Switzerland; (M.S.); (C.M.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +41-61-207-04-30
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Greve V, Odom K, Pudner S, Lamb NE, Cooper SJ, East K. Characteristics and experiences of patients from a community-based and consumer-directed hereditary cancer population screening initiative. HGG ADVANCES 2022; 3:100055. [PMID: 35047846 PMCID: PMC8756538 DOI: 10.1016/j.xhgg.2021.100055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2021] [Accepted: 08/17/2021] [Indexed: 10/29/2022] Open
Abstract
A clinical hereditary cancer population screening initiative, called Information is Power, began in North Alabama in 2015. After 4 years of the initiative, we were interested in exploring (1) the characteristics and motivations for patients who self-refer to population genetic testing, (2) how patients make decisions on testing, (3) what patients do with results, and (4) patient perceptions of benefits and limitations after undergoing population genetic testing. Patients who consented to research recontact at time of test ordering were sent an electronic survey with the option for a follow-up phone interview. Among the 2,918 eligible patients, 239 responded to the survey and 19 completed an interview. Survey and interview participants were highly educated information seekers motivated by learning more about their health. Those who were previously interested in hereditary cancer testing reported barriers were cost and insurance coverage, access to testing, and uncertainty how results could impact their health. Many participants (77%) communicated with family and friends about their decision to test and communicated about test results. Fewer participants (23%) discussed the decision to test with their healthcare providers; however, 58% of participants discussed their test results with a healthcare provider. Most people (96%) with negative results accurately recalled their results. In contrast, three out of 11 positive results for heterozygous MUTYH, PALB2, and BRCA2 reported receiving negative results. This study contributes to knowledge on population genetic testing and may guide other population genetic testing programs as they develop enrollment materials and educational materials and consider downstream needs of population genetic testing participants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Veronica Greve
- HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
| | - Katherine Odom
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA
| | | | - Neil E. Lamb
- HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
| | - Sara J. Cooper
- HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
| | - Kelly East
- HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
| |
Collapse
|