Coping response and family communication of cancer risk in men harboring a BRCA mutation: A mixed methods study

Psychosocial barriers and facilitators for cascade genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a scoping review

Despite increased awareness and availability of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome for over 20 years, there is still significant underuse of cascade genetic testing among at-risk relatives. This scoping review synthesized evidence regarding psychosocial barriers and facilitators of family communication and/or uptake of cascade genetic testing in relatives from HBOC families. Search terms included 'hereditary breast and ovarian cancer' and 'cascade genetic testing' for studies published from 2012-2022. Through searching common databases, and manual search of references, 480 studies were identified after excluding duplications. Each article was reviewed by two researchers independently and 20 studies were included in the final analysis. CASP, RoBANS 2.0, RoB 2.0, and MMAT were used to assess the quality of included studies. A convergent data synthesis method was used to integrate evidence from quantitative and narrative data into categories and subcategories. Evidence points to 3 categories and 12 subcategories of psychosocial barriers and facilitators for cascade testing: (1) facilitators (belief in health protection and prevention; family closeness; decisional empowerment; family support, sense of responsibility; self-efficacy; supportive health professionals); (2) bidirectional concepts (information; perception of genetic/cancer consequences; negative emotions and attitude); and (3) barriers (negative reactions from family and negative family dynamics). Healthcare providers need to systematically evaluate these psychosocial factors, strengthen facilitators and alleviate barriers to promote informed decision-making for communication of genetic test results and uptake of genetic testing. Bidirectional factors merit special consideration and tailored approaches, as they can potentially have a positive or negative influence on family communication and uptake of genetic testing.

Modes of responsibility in disclosing cancer genetic test results to relatives: An analysis of Swiss and Korean narrative data

OBJECTIVE

We examined how responsibility (the "duty to inform relatives about genetic testing results") is understood and enacted among Swiss and Korean women carrying BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

METHODS

In-depth interviews and/or focus groups with 46 Swiss and 22 Korean carriers were conducted, using an identical interview guide. Data were analyzed inductively and translated into English for cross-country comparisons.

RESULTS

We identified five modes of responsibility in both samples: Persuader, Enabler, Relayer, Delayer, and Decliner. The Enabler and Relayer modes were the most common in both countries. They followed the rational imperative of health and norms of competence and self-determination, respectively. The Relayer mode transmitted information without trying to influence relatives' decisions. The Delayer and Decliner modes withheld information, deeming it the best way to safeguard the family during that specific moment of its trajectory. Responsibility to disclose testing results was influenced by culturally diverging conceptions of the family unit and socio-contextual norms.

CONCLUSION

Responsibility primarily reflects the imperative of health prevention; findings demonstrate various interpretations, including the sense of family caring achieved through controlled disclosure of genetic information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings offer healthcare providers socio-anthropological insights to assist probands navigate the disclosure of genetic information within their families.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04214210 (registered Nov 2, 2020), KCT 0005643 (registered Nov 23, 2020).

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Genomic Healthcare Utilization, Patient Activation, and Intrafamilial Communication of Risk among Females Tested for BRCA Variants: A Mixed Methods Study

This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of genomic healthcare utilization, patient activation, and intrafamilial risk communication among racially and ethnically diverse individuals tested for BRCA variants. We employed an explanatory, sequential, mixed-methods study guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior. Participants completed an online survey, including sociodemographic, medical history, and several validated instruments. A subset of participants participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews. A total of 242 women were included in the quantitative analyses. The majority of survey participants identified as non-Hispanic white (NHW) (n = 197, 81.4%) while 45/242 (18.5%) identified as black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). The NHW participants were more likely to communicate genetic test results with healthcare providers, family, and friends than BIPOC participants (p < 0.05). BIPOC participants had lower satisfaction with testing decisions and significantly higher ratings of personal discrimination, fatalism, resilience, uncertainty, and lower patient activation scores (p < 0.05). Participants with higher education, greater satisfaction with testing decisions, and lower resilience are more likely to communicate BRCA test results with family members through the mediating effect of patient activation. Bridging disparities to ensure that genomic healthcare benefits all people may demand theory-driven, multi-level interventions targeting the individual, interpersonal, and healthcare system levels.

The Communication Chain of Genetic Risk: Analyses of Narrative Data Exploring Proband–Provider and Proband–Family Communication in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Low uptake of genetic services among members of families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) suggests limitations of proband-mediated communication of genetic risk. This study explored how genetic information proceeds from healthcare providers to probands and from probands to relatives, from the probands’ perspectives. Using a grounded-theory approach, we analyzed narrative data collected with individual interviews and focus groups from a sample of 48 women identified as carriers of HBOC-associated pathogenic variants from three linguistic regions of Switzerland. The findings describe the “communication chain”, confirming the difficulties of proband-mediated communication. Provider–proband communication is impacted by a three-level complexity in the way information about family communication is approached by providers, received by probands, and followed-up by the healthcare system. Probands’ decisions regarding disclosure of genetic risk are governed by dynamic and often contradictory logics of action, interconnected with individual and family characteristics, eventually compelling probands to engage in an arbitrating process. The findings highlight the relevance of probands’ involvement in the communication of genetic risk to relatives, suggesting the need to support them in navigating the complexity of family communication rather than replacing them in this process. Concrete actions at the clinical and health system levels are needed to improve proband-mediated communication.

Exploring Rare Disease Patient Attitudes and Beliefs regarding Genetic Testing: Implications for Person-Centered Care

Most rare diseases are genetic in etiology and characterized by a ‘diagnostic odyssey’. Genomic advances have helped speed up the diagnosis for many rare disorders, opening new avenues for precision therapies. Little is known about patient attitudes, experiences, and beliefs about genetic testing for the rare disease congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH). Methods: We conducted six focus groups with patients with CHH (n = 58). Transcripts were coded by independent investigators and validated by external reviewers. Results: Major themes relating to pre-test experiences were ‘attitudes & beliefs’ (most frequently cited theme), which revealed altruism as a strong motivator for pursuing research testing and ‘information and support,’ which revealed a striking lack of pre-testing decisional support/genetic counseling. Major post-test themes included ‘return of results,’ revealing frustration with the lack of return of results and limited emotional support, and ‘family communication,’ describing challenging intrafamilial communication. Themes describing ethical concerns (i.e., privacy, use of samples) were least frequently noted and related to pre- and post-test experiences. Conclusions: Patients with CHH are highly motivated by altruism when pursuing testing but have significant unmet needs for pre-test decisional support and post-test counseling. It is regarded that patient values, beliefs and experiences can inform more person-centered approaches to genetic testing for rare diseases.