Analysis of Advantages, Limitations, and Barriers of Genetic Counseling Service Delivery Models

Uptake of Cancer Genetic Services for Chatbot vs Standard-of-Care Delivery Models: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Increasing numbers of unaffected individuals could benefit from genetic evaluation for inherited cancer susceptibility. Automated conversational agents (ie, chatbots) are being developed for cancer genetics contexts; however, randomized comparisons with standard of care (SOC) are needed.

Objective

To examine whether chatbot and SOC approaches are equivalent in completion of pretest cancer genetic services and genetic testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This equivalence trial (Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services [BRIDGE] randomized clinical trial) was conducted between August 15, 2020, and August 31, 2023, at 2 US health care systems (University of Utah Health and NYU Langone Health). Participants were aged 25 to 60 years, had had a primary care visit in the previous 3 years, were eligible for cancer genetic evaluation, were English or Spanish speaking, had no prior cancer diagnosis other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, had no prior cancer genetic counseling or testing, and had an electronic patient portal account.

Intervention

Participants were randomized 1:1 at the patient level to the study groups at each site. In the chatbot intervention group, patients were invited in a patient portal outreach message to complete a pretest genetics education chat. In the enhanced SOC control group, patients were invited to complete an SOC pretest appointment with a certified genetic counselor.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were completion of pretest cancer genetic services (ie, pretest genetics education chat or pretest genetic counseling appointment) and completion of genetic testing. Equivalence hypothesis testing was used to compare the study groups.

Results

This study included 3073 patients (1554 in the chatbot group and 1519 in the enhanced SOC control group). Their mean (SD) age at outreach was 43.8 (9.9) years, and most (2233 of 3063 [72.9%]) were women. A total of 204 patients (7.3%) were Black, 317 (11.4%) were Latinx, and 2094 (75.0%) were White. The estimated percentage point difference for completion of pretest cancer genetic services between groups was 2.0 (95% CI, -1.1 to 5.0). The estimated percentage point difference for completion of genetic testing was -1.3 (95% CI, -3.7 to 1.1). Analyses suggested equivalence in the primary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of the BRIDGE equivalence trial support the use of chatbot approaches to offer cancer genetic services. Chatbot tools can be a key component of sustainable and scalable population health management strategies to enhance access to cancer genetic services.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03985852.

Comparing cancer genetic counselling using telegenetics with in-person and telephone appointments: Results of a partially randomised patient-preference pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Direct-to-patient telegenetics, which uses video conferencing to connect health professionals directly to patients' devices, has been widely adopted during the pandemic. However, limited evidence currently supports its use in cancer genetic counselling.

METHODS

Before the pandemic, we conducted a two-arm partially randomised patient-preference pilot trial to evaluate direct-to-patient telegenetics for patients and genetic counsellors. Patients were randomised to a standard care (telephone/in-person) or direct-to-patient telegenetics appointment. Patients completed questionnaires before, during and after appointments measuring: psychological distress, perceived genetic counsellor empathy, telegenetics satisfaction and technical challenges. Genetic counsellor-reported outcomes -measured using purpose-designed questionnaires- included telegenetics satisfaction, therapeutic alliance and time for assessment. Open-ended patient and genetic counsellor questionnaire responses were synthesised using content analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients and seven genetic counsellors participated. Thirteen patients switched appointment type. No significant differences in distress (P  =  0.84) were identified between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care. Perceived genetic counsellor empathy was high for all appointment types. There was no evidence of differences in reported maximum empathy scores between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care [telephone (P  =  0.57); in-person (P  =  0.44)]. Patients reported high direct-to-patient telegenetics satisfaction despite technical challenges in most appointments (65%). Genetic counsellors were satisfied with direct-to-patient telegenetics and perceived high therapeutic alliance irrespective of appointment type. No significant differences in genetic counsellor time were identified between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care [telephone (P > 0.90); in-person (P  =  0.35)].

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that direct-to-patient telegenetics is a satisfactory service delivery model that does not appear to compromise patient-genetic counsellor relationships or increase patient distress. These findings support direct-to-patient telegenetics use in cancer genetic counselling, although larger trials are needed.

Implementation and evaluation of a fertility preservation telehealth counseling intervention for males with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Most males with cystic fibrosis (MwCF) have congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens and require assisted reproductive technology to conceive, yet many have limited knowledge about how CF affects sexual and reproductive health (SRH). This study evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness of telehealth fertility preservation (FP) counseling for MwCF.

METHODS

Pre-lung transplant MwCF ≥18 years, recruited from U.S. CF centers, social media, and via snowball sampling, received individualized telehealth counseling. Participants completed intervention feasibility/acceptability one week post-counseling and FP knowledge, care satisfaction, and self-efficacy assessments at baseline and two months post-counseling. We completed acceptability interviews one-week post-counseling and audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed results. We descriptively analyzed survey results and conducted pre/post comparisons using paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Thirty MwCF (ages 22-49 years) completed counseling. Most were in a relationship (70 %) and White (86.7 %). Telehealth FP counseling was acceptable (M = 4.38/5 ± 0.60), appropriate (M = 4.37/5 ± 0.60), and feasible (M = 4.60/5 ± 0.45) to MwCF. FP knowledge (9.53 vs. 10.40/12; p = .010), care satisfaction (20.23 vs 26.67/32; p<.001), and self-efficacy (22.87 vs 25.20/30; p = .016) improved at two months post-counseling. Despite desiring provider-initiated SRH, wanting children (81 %), and perceiving the CF team as their primary care provider (97 %), 44 % report not receiving information about infertility by the CF team.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating FP counseling into CF care is feasible and acceptable to MwCF and can improve FP knowledge, self-efficacy, and care satisfaction. MwCF desire early and regular provider-initiated SRH education.

Pivotal Role of Genetic Counselors in the Uptake of Germline Genetic Testing in Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer and the Impact of Testing on Surgical Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing is increasingly utilized in breast cancer patients; however, testing rates remain low. We aimed to evaluate the rate of genetic testing at a tertiary academic medical center utilizing a multidisciplinary clinic model including genetic counselor.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review was performed on a cohort of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from January 2018 through February 2019. Patients were reviewed for genetic screening eligibility, consultation with a genetic counselor, and test results.

RESULTS

Final analysis included 426 patients. 261 (61.3%) were found to meet National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic testing, of which 178 patient (68.2%) underwent testing and 32 patients (12.3%) declined testing. Of the 165 not eligible for testing, 5 patients were tested. A total of 183 patients underwent testing and 116 (63.4%) had a negative result, 17 (9.3%) were positive for at least one gene mutation and 50 (27.3%) were identified to have a variant of unknown significance (VUS). There was a positive association between those patients who met with a genetic counselor and eligibility for testing (OR 31.1, 95% CI 16.0-60.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing result has become an increasingly important factor when defining optimal surgical treatment for breast cancer patients. Increasing the availability of genetic consultation for breast cancer patients can improve testing rates and patient selection.

Genetic counseling and testing for females at elevated risk for breast cancer: Protocol for the randomized controlled trial of the Know Your Risk intervention

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling and testing have an important role in the care of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. However, conventional pre- and post-test genetic counseling is labor and time intensive, less accessible for patients living outside major urban centers, and impractical on a large scale. A patient-driven approach to genetic counseling and testing may increase access, improve patients' experiences, affect efficiency of clinical practice, and help meet workforce demand. The objective of this 2-arm randomized controlled trial is to determine the efficacy of Know Your Risk (KYR), a genetic counseling patient preference intervention.

METHODS

Females (n = 1000) at elevated risk (>20% lifetime) for breast cancer will be randomized to the KYR intervention or conventional genetic counseling. The study will provide comprehensive assessment of breast cancer risk by multigene panel testing and validated polygenic risk score. Primary outcome is adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for a clinical encounter every 6-12 months and an annual mammogram (breast MRI if recommended) determined by medical record review. Secondary outcomes include adherence to other recommended cancer screening tests determined by medical record review and changes in breast cancer knowledge, perception of risk, post-test/counseling distress, and satisfaction with counseling by completion of three surveys during the study. Study aims will be evaluated for non-inferiority of the KYR intervention compared to conventional genetic counseling.

CONCLUSION

If efficacious, the KYR intervention has the potential to improve patients' experience and may change how genetic counseling is delivered, inform best practices, and reduce workforce burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT05325151.

Piloting a Spanish-Language Web-Based Tool for Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing

The delivery of hereditary cancer pre-test education among Spanish-language patients is impeded by the dearth of Spanish-speaking genetic counselors. To address this gap, we evaluated a web-based genetic education tool delivered in Spanish to provide information typically discussed during an initial genetic counseling session. Spanish-speaking patients with a personal or family history of cancer were recruited at two centers in Puerto Rico and through social media. A total of 41 participants completed a survey before and after viewing the tool to measure knowledge, attitudes, and decisional empowerment. A subset of 10 participants completed a virtual semi-structured interview to assess the usability and appropriateness of the tool. Paired t-tests were calculated to evaluate changes in knowledge and attitudes. A McNemar test assessed for decisional empowerment. Interview transcripts were translated from Spanish to English and inductively coded and analyzed. Results revealed significant increases in knowledge (p < 0.001), while attitudes about genetic testing did not change (p = 0.77). The proportion of individuals who felt fully informed and empowered to decide about whether to undergo genetic testing increased from 15% to 51% (p < 0.001). Qualitative data indicated that participants found the tool easy to use with informative and valuable content. Our findings suggest this Spanish-language tool is a user-friendly and scalable solution to help inform and empower many individuals to decide about cancer genetic testing, recognizing that others may still benefit from genetic counseling prior to testing.

A pilot study of home-based genetic testing completion rate in telegenetics cancer clinics in West Virginia Appalachia

Telegenetics has shifted some genetic testing performance to the patient's own home, with the patient collecting his/her own sample. Little is known regarding the rate of test completion of such home-based genetic testing. This study compared the completion rate of home-based genetic tests before and after a reminder system was implemented. In the pre-reminder group, we reviewed medical records for patients who were seen via telegenetics and agreed to complete genetic testing using an at-home test kit. In the reminder group, a prospective analysis of the genetic test completion rate was performed taking a clinical quality improvement approach where three reminders were provided for patients who had not submitted their at-home genetic testing. Our study included 94 patients' records: 46 pre-reminders and 48 reminders. The lab received 24 patient samples (52.2%) in the pre-reminder group. In the reminder group, 30 patients returned their kits (62.5%). Despite a higher percentage of patients completing their test in the reminder group, there was no statistically significant difference between the pre-reminder and reminder groups. The rate of test completion in our pilot test was statistically similar between the two groups, but the reminder group was trending toward a higher percent of completion which may be clinically meaningful.

Telehealth in genetic counselling consultations: the impact of COVID-19 in a Portuguese genetic healthcare service

The already increasing use of telemedicine in the last few years has risen significantly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. With a fast implementation, it is important to understand the experience of genetic counselling patients using telehealth. To this end, we developed a study to understand the impact of the pandemic on genetics consultations, using a mixed-method approach through a questionnaire to collect the patients' opinions. The largest group included in the study was 26-45 years old (65%), and 33.6% had completed year 12 of secondary education. Due to the impact of the pandemic, we observed an increase of 84.5% in teleconsultations. The participants' satisfaction was quite significant, 67.3% felt comfortable discussing personal and family health, 53.6% were well-enlightened, and 59.1% did not find it difficult to build a doctor-patient relationship. However, 64.5% of our participants indicated using the service only for subsequent consultations but supported the idea of continuing with telemedicine in the future. Undoubtedly, this service is essential for better quality and healthcare support. The professionals involved must be increasingly trained to provide adequate genetic counselling and comfort to the patient. Training automatically influences the improvement of the service regarding the barriers encountered and consequently provides a better experience and satisfaction to the patient and their families.

Development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention for women at elevated risk for breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention that replaces conventional pre-test genetic counseling for women at elevated breast cancer risk.

METHODS

We used an iterative process that was guided by health behavior theory and feedback from multiple stakeholder groups including: 1) content input from genetic experts; 2) study team input; 3) review of video storyboards, video example, study logo, recruitment materials, post-test patient preference counseling survey, and additional study surveys; 4) video series development; and 5) intervention review and finalization of study-related materials.

RESULTS

The intervention is patient-centered providing convenience and an opportunity for an individual's preferences for post-test counseling delivery. The intervention's efficacy is being determined in a randomized controlled trial compared to conventional genetic counseling for adherence to recommended guidelines and changes in knowledge, perception of breast cancer risk, breast cancer-specific worry, and satisfaction with counseling.

CONCLUSION

If efficacious, the intervention may improve the delivery of the genetic testing and counseling process, inform best practices, and reduce the genetic counseling workforce burden.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The developed intervention has the potential to improve the genetic testing and counseling experience for women at elevated risk for breast cancer, inform best practices, and reduce genetic counseling workforce burden.

A systematic review of geographical inequities for accessing clinical genomic and genetic services for non-cancer related rare disease

Place plays a significant role in our health. As genetic/genomic services evolve and are increasingly seen as mainstream, especially within the field of rare disease, it is important to ensure that where one lives does not impede access to genetic/genomic services. Our aim was to identify barriers and enablers of geographical equity in accessing clinical genomic or genetic services. We undertook a systematic review searching for articles relating to geographical access to genetic/genomic services for rare disease. Searching the databases Medline, EMBASE and PubMed returned 1803 papers. Screening led to the inclusion of 20 articles for data extraction. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified four themes (i) Current service model design, (ii) Logistical issues facing clinicians and communities, (iii) Workforce capacity and capability and iv) Rural culture and consumer beliefs. Several themes were common to both rural and urban communities. However, many themes were exacerbated for rural populations due to a lack of clinician access to/relationships with genetic specialist staff, the need to provide more generalist services and a lack of genetic/genomic knowledge and skill. Additional barriers included long standing systemic service designs that are not fit for purpose due to historically ad hoc approaches to delivery of care. There were calls for needs assessments to clarify community needs. Enablers of geographically equitable care included the uptake of new innovative models of care and a call to raise both community and clinician knowledge and awareness to demystify the clinical offer from genetics/genomics services.

Genetic Testing for All: Overcoming Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Genetic Testing

Nearly 3% of the population carries genetic variants that lead to conditions that include hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. These pathogenic variants account for approximately 20% of ovarian cancer cases, and those with germline pathogenic variants have an odds ratio between 4 and 40 for developing ovarian cancer compared with noncarriers. Given the high prevalence of genetic variants, multiple organizations, including ASCO, recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, most individuals with a hereditary ovarian cancer syndrome are unaware of their underlying mutation, and racial and ethnic minority individuals as well as patients of low socioeconomic status experience disproportionate rates of underrecognition, leading to late and missed diagnoses. In this article, we review the current understanding of disparities in genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer, the role of population-based genetic testing, and innovative strategies to overcome the critical inequities present in current cancer genetic medicine. Underuse and disparities related to accessing recommended genetic services are complex and multifactorial, requiring improvements in processes related to provider identification, genetic counseling and testing referral, and patient uptake/adherence. Through the expansion of remote genetic counseling, offering online strategies for genetic testing, and reaching at-risk relatives through direct relative contact cascade testing and population-based genetic testing, there are a growing number of innovations in the field of genetic medicine, many of which emphasize health equity and offer promising alternatives to the current paradigm of genetic testing.

Targeted BRCA1/2 population screening among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals using a web-enabled medical model: An observational cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate uptake and follow-up using internet-assisted population genetic testing (GT) for BRCA1/2 Ashkenazi Jewish founder pathogenic variants (AJPVs).

METHODS

Across 4 cities in the United States, from December 2017 to March 2020, individuals aged ≥25 years with ≥1 Ashkenazi Jewish grandparent were offered enrollment. Participants consented and enrolled online with chatbot and video education, underwent BRCA1/2 AJPV GT, and chose to receive results from their primary care provider (PCP) or study staff. Surveys were conducted at baseline, at 12 weeks, and annually for 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 5193 participants enrolled and 4109 (79.1%) were tested (median age = 54, female = 77.1%). Upon enrollment, 35.1% of participants selected a PCP to disclose results, and 40.5% of PCPs agreed. Of those tested, 138 (3.4%) were AJPV heterozygotes of whom 21 (15.2%) had no significant family history of cancer, whereas 86 (62.3%) had a known familial pathogenic variant. At 12 weeks, 85.5% of participants with AJPVs planned increased cancer screening; only 3.7% with negative results and a significant family history reported further testing.

CONCLUSION

Although continued follow-up is needed, internet-enabled outreach can expand access to targeted GT using a medical model. Observed challenges for population genetic screening efforts include recruitment barriers, improving PCP engagement, and increasing uptake of additional testing when indicated.

Telehealth genetic services during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implementation and patient experiences across multiple specialties in Nebraska

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the delivery of genetics services. In response to the pandemic, our genetics department offered telehealth visits to all outpatients, regardless of their physical proximity to Omaha, Nebraska. Traditionally, our department did not offer telehealth visits to patient's homes or to patients who lived in close proximity to a genetics clinic. Therefore, we designed a survey to gain insight into the patient experience with remote genetic counseling appointments during the pandemic. Any patient referred to see a genetics provider in pediatrics, prenatal, adult, or cancer between March 16, 2020 and October 28, 2020 was eligible for the study. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative measures to assess patient demographics, patient experience, stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic, and anxiety and depression. We hypothesized that patients would report they received quality care by telehealth despite the presence of COVID-19-related stressors or anxiety/depression. From the 143 survey participants, 80% had their first telehealth appointment during the pandemic. The vast majority (96%) reported that they felt like they received quality care by telehealth. Additionally, more than 93% of participants strongly or somewhat agreed that their genetic providers were attentive to their emotional needs, medical needs, and privacy. Since March 2020, participants reported experiencing several COVID-19-related stressors including fear of illness (86%), feelings of isolation (45%), and safety concerns (33%). Relatively low levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms were recorded using the HADS questionnaire. Despite the prevalence of COVID-19 stressors, depression, and/or anxiety, our participants felt they received quality care via telehealth. In fact, 51% agree that they prefer to receive future genetics services virtually. These results suggest the value of telehealth as an alternative service delivery model, even for local patients, and should be offered for future appointments, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Analysis of the reported use of practice-based competencies by North American genetic counselors during the COVID-19 pandemic

Genetic counseling services changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many genetic counselors (GCs) moved from in-person to telehealth services. Others were redeployed by choice or necessity, using their expertise to provide COVID-19 care and education. For some, their employment status changed due to budgetary constraints or decreasing referrals. This study surveyed North American GCs to assess the relative use of genetic counseling Practice-Based Competencies (PBCs) as a proxy for the skills used during the first wave of the pandemic, whether GCs were in their current role or in new or adjusted roles. A secondary aim was to determine whether GCs believe their training should be refocused in view of the workforce shifts posed by the pandemic. The survey comprised closed- and open-ended questions and was completed in full by 97 respondents. The study population was representative of the general genetic counseling workforce in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, age, and practice area when compared to the National Society of Genetic Counselors 2020 Professional Status Survey. Most participants (97.9%) indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a change to their work, and 89.7% used at least one PBC at a different frequency than before the pandemic. The most significant change was the adaptation of genetic counseling skills for varied service delivery models: 83.5% of respondents indicated that their roles and responsibilities moved to a remote setting and/or utilized telehealth. The majority of participants felt competent using the PBCs during the pandemic. Major themes that emerged from the qualitative data were as follows: (a) adaptation of service delivery, (b) translation of genetic counseling skills, and (c) provision of psychosocial support. This study highlights practice changes for GCs due to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the increased use of, and need for focused training in, varied service delivery models.

Genetic counseling in the time of COVID-19: The Philippine experience with telegenetics

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant challenge to healthcare professionals and health systems around the world, most notably the disruption of its service delivery. The typical work setting for most genetic counselors (GCs) is in a clinic or hospital. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, to help prevent the further spread of the virus, clinics and hospitals have restricted non-urgent in-person delivery of healthcare services, including genetic counseling. Patients' access to genetic counseling services has thus been limited, which prompted GCs in the country to utilize an alternative way to provide counseling through telegenetics. With the expansion of genetic services in the country, including the full implementation of expanded newborn screening, there is an increasing demand for genetic counseling and a growing need for telegenetics.

Far and wide: Exploring provider utilization of remote service provision for genome-wide sequencing in Canada

Background

In Canada, funding for genome‐wide sequencing (GWS; exome and whole genome) is provincially regulated. We characterized the uptake of GWS by genetics health professionals (GHPs) across Canada and describe how they use remote technologies for patient access to GWS and genomic counseling.

Methods

We distributed a survey to 574 Canadian GHPs addressing: GWS use, remote technologies (e.g., telephone, videoconferencing) for GWS and provider opinions regarding these technologies. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Associations between variables were evaluated using Chi‐square and Fisher's Exact tests for categorical data, and t‐tests or Mann–Whitney U tests for continuous data.

Results

Of 116 GHPs, 50% reported using GWS in the last year and 57% of GWS users reported using remote technologies. Clinical geneticists who did not use GWS reported lack of provincial funding as the principal reason. Remote technologies were most commonly used for informed consent and results, and rarely used for initial consultations. Average wait times for a GWS appointment were shorter for remote appointments (mean 44.2 (SD 40.2) weeks) than for in‐person (mean 58.2 (SD 42.9), p = 0.036).

Conclusion

The use of GWS varied across Canada, professional designation, and discipline. Funding remains a barrier to GWS access. Remote technologies increase patient access with reduced wait times.

'Steep learning curves' to 'Smooth Sailing': A reappraisal of telegenetics amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed medical providers to trial telemedicine on a scale that lacks precedent. In genetic medicine, nearly overnight genetics providers were asked to transition to telemedicine platforms, irrespective of their previous experience with these modalities. This push to telegenetics prompted a reappraisal of the practice, as genetics providers learned firsthand about the feasibility, benefits, and drawbacks of telegenetics and telesupervision, all of which raise questions about the potential incorporation of these platforms beyond the pandemic. Adding to nascent literature on the transition to telegenetics amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to evaluate provider experiences and preferences with respect to telegenetics through qualitative semi-structured interviews with genetics providers. Nineteen providers from seven institutions participated in a semi-structured interview focused on the rapid shift to telegenetics, the benefits and drawbacks of the practice, experiences supervising students on virtual platforms, and providers' preferences. We employed a qualitative methodology so that providers working across diverse subspecialties could expand upon previously reported benefits and drawbacks. Qualitative data revealed the nuanced benefits of telegenetics which included overcoming geographic, spatial, and temporal barriers to care as well as greater involvement of patients' family members in sessions. In addition, the data indicated drawbacks related to additional tasks such as completing paperwork electronically and facilitating the collection of specimens from patients' homes. Interviews with providers from different subspecialties revealed how telegenetics may be uniquely useful for particular subspecialties, patient populations, or clinics for whom the aforementioned barriers are more significant. Providers reported that telesupervision made the provision of feedback to students more cumbersome and identified a number of methods for enriching the telesupervision experience. In keeping with previous research, most genetics providers appraised telegenetics as a valuable addition to patient care (68%, N = 13) and hoped to offer it as an option beyond the pandemic (63%, N = 12).

Genetic counselor experiences with telehealth before and after COVID-19

While genetic counselor (GC) utilization of telehealth has increased in recent years, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated the adoption of telehealth for many. We investigated GC experiences with telehealth including perceived advantages, disadvantages, and barriers using a one-time online survey of GCs who provided direct patient care in recent years. The survey examined experiences with telehealth before and after the onset of COVID-19. We made broad comparisons to findings from a similar study our research team conducted five years ago. GCs reported an increase in the utilization of telehealth over time, with significant increases from pre-2017 (44%) to pre-COVID-19 (70%) and then to present (87%) (p<.001 and .02, respectively). There was no significant change in the total number of hours worked from pre-COVID-19 to the time of survey completion, nor were there significant changes in the amount of time spent on clinical responsibilities or interfacing with patients. However, the total number of hours worked in telehealth significantly increased (z = 5.05, p<.001) as did the percent of time spent interacting with patients via telehealth [t(72)=3.74, p<.001, d = 0.44]. Participants overwhelmingly preferred video (84%) over telephone; this differs from our previous survey where video was the preferred modality for 59% (p<.001). We utilized open-ended questions to elicit reasons for modality preference. The most-cited barrier to telehealth utilization was billing/reimbursement issues, with 39% noting this obstacle. This is consistent with our previous study where 30% cited billing/reimbursement as the primary barrier. These findings indicate a need for continued efforts to improve billing and reimbursement for genetic counseling offered via telehealth. They also present an opportunity for additional exploration regarding patient preferences for telehealth modality.

Adapting genetic counseling operations amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions to the delivery of genetic counseling services and clinical operations. Understanding how these pivots in practice affected patient care across both a county hospital system and academic medical center can help provide models of clinical operations for other genetic counselors. Programmatic data were analyzed between March 18, 2020 and September 18, 2020, including visit completion rates and genetic testing completion outcomes for genetic counseling services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to analyzing the effects on patient care, we provide commentary on technological adaptations that aided our operations, billing practices, onboarding and engaging new and existing staff, and coordination of education and outreach opportunities. Through this work, we highlight barriers encountered and successful adaptations that will influence future clinical practices and may guide other providers in the development of strategies to meet their clinical and operational needs.

Transitioning to telegenetics in the COVID-19 era: Patient satisfaction with remote genetic counseling in adult neurology

The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed genetic counseling services across the United States. At the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), a large academic hospital in an urban setting, nearly all genetic counseling (GC) visits for adult-onset disorders within the Department of Neurology were conducted via secure videoconferencing (telegenetics) or telephone between March and December 2020. Although telemedicine services have been steadily emerging, many clinical programs, including the neurogenetics program at UPenn, had not built infrastructure or widely utilized these services prior to the pandemic. Thus, little is known about patient attitudes toward receiving clinical GC services remotely. From May 18 to October 18, 2020, all individuals seen remotely for GC in adult neurology via telephone or telegenetics were surveyed about their satisfaction with telehealth GC (N = 142), with a response rate of 42% (N = 60/142). Telephone and telegenetics services were referred to as 'telehealth' in the surveys to capture patient perspectives on all remote GC services, though the majority (N = 49/60) of these visits were completed via telegenetics. Surveys included the modified telehealth usability questionnaire (MTUQ), genetic counseling satisfaction scale (GCSS), and novel questions about future telehealth use. Preliminary results suggest that patients were satisfied with receiving remote GC services in adult neurology, with most participants strongly agreeing to all items about satisfaction with telehealth. Just 2% of participants preferred only in-person visits in the future, but every participant was willing to consider using telehealth for future visits if their genetic counselor felt it was appropriate. Most participants preferred a hybrid model (73%), and some (25%) preferred only telehealth for future visits. Additionally, we found no differences in satisfaction with remote services based on visit type (initial vs. results disclosure) nor age. We conclude that remote GC is an acceptable method for the provision of services in adult neurology that is well-received by patients.

Changes to the genetic counseling workforce as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all aspects of our lives. The full impact of the pandemic is still unfolding and will take years to fully understand. This longitudinal study followed a sample of 189 genetic counselors from June to November of 2020, starting with an online retrospective baseline survey of pre-COVID-19 functioning and continuing with a monthly online survey (average retention = 89.2%) to assess changes in self-reported stress, employment status, billing practices, self-efficacy, and their use of telehealth. Participants were recruited from specific states representing geographic diversity with publicly available databases of contact information as well as social media. The sample was largely reflective of the professional demographics reported in the 2020 Professional Status Survey (PSS). Comparisons were made between the PSS, baseline assessment of pre-COVID-19 status, June, and November data. Genetic counselor workload did not significantly change in terms of hours worked from baseline to November, though patients served per week dropped initially before returning to pre-COVID-19 levels. Genetic counselors were increasingly working remotely and supervising students less frequently in November compared to pre-COVID-19 baseline. Approximately 50% of the sample were unable to bill for services throughout the study period, with billing practices not changing during this time. Approximately 40% experienced a negative employment change in June, which dropped to ~10% in November. Personal and family stress levels were elevated during the study period, while financial stress increased from baseline to June it returned to pre-COVID-19 levels by November. Self-efficacy for common genetic counseling skills decreased from baseline to June but returned to baseline levels by November. The results suggest the workforce faced transitions but has rebounded in most areas studied. The pandemic highlighted pre-existing billing issues, and the current billing structures were not able to shift in the face of practice transitions. The long-term implications of the pandemic remain to be seen, but the results indicate returns toward baseline data in most areas with the exceptions of supervision, personal and family stress, and billing.

Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer

Purpose:

To address demands for timely germline information to guide treatments, we evaluated experiences of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer with a mainstreaming genetic testing model wherein multigene panel testing was ordered by oncologists with standardized pre-test patient education, and genetic counselors delivered results and post-test genetic counseling via telephone.

Methods:

Among 1203 eligible patients, we conducted a prospective single-arm study to examine patient uptake and acceptability (via self-report surveys at baseline and three-weeks and three-months following result return) of this mainstreaming model.

Results:

Only 10% of eligible patients declined participation. Among 1054 tested participants, 10% had pathogenic variants (PV), 16% had variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and 74% had no variant identified (NV). Participants reported high initial acceptability, including high satisfaction with their testing decision. Variability over time in several outcomes existed for participants with PV or NV: Those with NV experienced a temporary increase in depression (p_Time<0.001; p_Time2<0.001), and those with PV experienced a small increase in genetic testing distress (p=0.03). Findings suggested that result type, sex, and cancer type were also associated with outcomes including clinical depression and uncertainty.

Conclusion:

This mainstreaming model may offer a feasible approach for extending access to germline genetic information.

Has translational genomics come of age in Africa?

The rapid increase in genomics research in Africa and the growing promise of precision public health begs the question of whether African genomics has come of age and is being translated into improved healthcare for Africans. An assessment of the continent's readiness suggests that genetic service delivery remains limited and extremely fragile. The paucity of data on mutation profiles for monogenic disorders and lack of large genome-wide association cohorts for complex traits in African populations is a significant barrier, coupled with extreme genetic variation across different regions and ethnic groups. Data from many different populations is essential to developing appropriate genetic services. Of the proposed genetic service delivery models currently used in Africa-Uncharacterized, Limited, Disease-focused, Emerging and Established-the first three best describe the situation in most African countries. Implementation is fraught with difficulties related to the scarcity of an appropriately skilled medical genetic workforce, limited infrastructure and processes, insufficient health funding and lack of political support, and overstretched health systems. There is a strong nucleus of determined and optimistic clinicians and scientists with a clear vision, and there is hope for innovative solutions and technological leapfrogging. However, a multi-dimensional approach with active interventions to stimulate genomic research, clinical genetics and overarching healthcare systems is needed to reduce genetic service inequalities and accelerate precision public health on the continent. Human and infrastructure capacity development, dedicated funding, political will and supporting legislation, and public education and awareness, are critical elements for success. Africa-relevant genomic and related health economics research remains imperative with an overarching need to translate knowledge into improved healthcare. Given the limited data and genetic services across most of Africa, the continent has not yet come of 'genomics' age.

The COVID-19 pandemic and reproductive genetic counseling: Changes in access and service delivery at an academic medical center in the United States

The COVID‐19 pandemic widely disrupted the delivery of healthcare services, including genetic counseling. To ensure continuity of care, the reproductive genetic counselors at a large academic medical center in the United States rapidly transitioned their practice from 90% in‐person patient consultations to a predominantly telehealth model. The present study describes this transition in regard to patient access to genetic counseling and genetic screening. A chart review of patients seen by the reproductive genetic counselors from January 2020 to August 2020 was completed. The time frame included the three months prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic and the first five months during COVID‐19. Patient demographics and clinical and appointment data were compared between the pre‐COVID‐19 and during‐COVID‐19 timeframes. Overall, 88.6% of patients were seen via telehealth during COVID‐19 and there was no significant difference based upon patient age (p = .20), indication for appointment (p = .06), or gestational age (p = .06). However, non‐English speaking patients were more often seen in‐person than by telehealth (p < .001), and more patients residing farther from the clinic were seen via telehealth (p = .004). During‐COVID‐19 results for prenatal cell‐free DNA screening and expanded carrier screening were delayed (p < .001). Additionally, after consenting to screening, patients seen during COVID‐19 were more likely to not complete a sample collection for their intended screening when compared to those seen pre‐COVID‐19 (OR = 6.15, 95% CI = 1.43–26.70, p = .015). Overall, this study supports that access to genetic counseling services and genetic screening can be maintained during a global pandemic like COVID‐19. Genetic counselors are well‐equipped to pivot swiftly during challenging times; however, they must continue to work to address other barriers to accessing genetic services, especially for non‐English speaking populations. Future studies are needed to pose solutions to the obstacles confronted in this service delivery model during a global pandemic.

U.S. Genetic counselors' perceptions of inpatient genetic counseling: A valuable model for medically complex patients

Some genetic counselors (GCs) provide care in the inpatient setting. However, there is little literature on inpatient genetic counseling. The purpose of our study was to describe GC's experiences with the provision of genetic counseling services within inpatient care settings. Participants were recruited from respondents to a quantitative survey study on inpatient genetic counseling, which recruited GCs via the National Society of Genetic Counselors forum. GCs seeing at least five inpatients per year were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interview guide explored how and why their inpatient genetic counseling service started, workflow, and the perceived impact of the service. Interviews were transcribed, inductive analysis was used to develop a codebook, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Twenty-one inpatient genetic counselors participated in the study. Many participants worked primarily in outpatient roles with some inpatient duties (61.9%), while the rest worked primarily in inpatient roles (38.1%). Most participants have provided inpatient care for <2 years (66.7%). Many participants were involved in inpatient care across multiple specialties (66.7%), most frequently, pediatrics, neonatology, and neurology. Three themes were identified: (a) The convenience of inpatient genetic counseling leads to increased access to appropriate genetics care for medically complex patients and their inpatient healthcare providers, (b) the inpatient genetic counseling process and workflow is not standard and has multiple moving parts, and (c) genetic counselors are fulfilled by the diverse and unique opportunities of the inpatient care setting despite the emotional intensity of this environment. Participants described their inpatient care as valuable because it increases access to genetics services and adds genetics expertise to multidisciplinary inpatient teams. Overall, participants perceive inpatient genetic counseling as a way to bring genetics care directly to patients at a critical time point in their care, which benefits medically complex patients and their multidisciplinary inpatient team.

Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Advances in genetics and sequencing technologies are enabling the identification of more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility who could benefit from tailored screening and prevention recommendations. While cancer family history information is used in primary care settings to identify unaffected patients who could benefit from a cancer genetics evaluation, this information is underutilized. System-level population health management strategies are needed to assist health care systems in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic services. In addition, because of the limited number of trained genetics specialists and increasing patient volume, the development of innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering cancer genetic services is essential.

METHODS

We are conducting a randomized controlled trial, entitled Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE), to address these needs. The trial is comparing uptake of genetic counseling, uptake of genetic testing, and patient adherence to management recommendations for automated, patient-directed versus enhanced standard of care cancer genetics services delivery models. An algorithm-based system that utilizes structured cancer family history data available in the electronic health record (EHR) is used to identify unaffected patients who receive primary care at the study sites and meet current guidelines for cancer genetic testing. We are enrolling eligible patients at two healthcare systems (University of Utah Health and New York University Langone Health) through outreach to a randomly selected sample of 2780 eligible patients in the two sites, with 1:1 randomization to the genetic services delivery arms within sites. Study outcomes are assessed through genetics clinic records, EHR, and two follow-up questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 months after last genetic counseling contactpre-test genetic counseling.

DISCUSSION

BRIDGE is being conducted in two healthcare systems with different clinical structures and patient populations. Innovative aspects of the trial include a randomized comparison of a chatbot-based genetic services delivery model to standard of care, as well as identification of at-risk individuals through a sustainable EHR-based system. The findings from the BRIDGE trial will advance the state of the science in identification of unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility and delivery of genetic services to those patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

BRIDGE is registered as NCT03985852 . The trial was registered on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov .

Benefits and limitations of telegenetics: A literature review

Telegenetics involves the use of technology (generally video conferencing) to remotely provide genetic services. A telegenetics platform is critical for those with limitations or vulnerabilities compromising their ability to attend clinic in-person, including individuals in rural areas. As the demand for remote genetics services increases, and amidst the COVID-19 pandemic with social distancing practices in place, we conducted a literature review to examine the benefits and limitations of telegenetics and explore the views of patients and health professionals utilizing telegenetics. Searches of the PubMed database identified 21 relevant primary studies for inclusion. The majority of studies found acceptability of telegenetics to be high among patients and health professionals and that telegenetics provided access to genetics services for underserved communities. The main benefits cited include cost-effectiveness and reduction in travel time for genetics services providing outreach clinics and patients who would otherwise travel long distances to access genetics. Patients appreciated the convenience of telegenetics including the reduced wait times, although a minority of patients reported their psychosocial needs were not adequately met. Eight studies compared outcomes between telegenetics and in-person services; findings suggested when comparing telegenetics patients to their in-person counterparts, telegenetics patients had a similar level of knowledge and understanding of genetics and similar psychological outcomes. Some studies reported challenges related to establishing rapport and reading and responding to verbal cues via telegenetics, while technical issues were not generally found to be a major limitation. Some service adaptations, for example, counseling strategies, may be required to successfully deliver telegenetics. Further research may be necessary to gather and examine data on how telegenetics outcomes compare to that of in-person genetic counseling and adapt services accordingly.

Barriers and Facilitators to Genetic Service Delivery Models: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Advances in diagnostics testing and treatment of genetic conditions have led to increased demand for genetic services in the United States. At the same time, there is a shortage of genetic services professionals. Thus, understanding the models of service delivery currently in use can help increase access and improve outcomes for individuals identified with genetic conditions.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to provide an overview of barriers and facilitators to genetic service delivery models to inform future service delivery.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of the evidence to more fully understand barriers and facilitators around the provision of genetic services.

RESULTS

There were a number of challenges identified, including the limited number of genetics specialists, wait time for appointments, delivery of services by nongenetics providers, reimbursement, and licensure. The ways to address these challenges include the use of health information technology such as telehealth, group genetic counseling, provider-to-provider education, partnership models, and training; expanding genetic provider types; and embedding genetic counselors in clinical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature review highlighted the need to expand access to genetic services. Ways to expand services include telehealth, technical assistance, and changing staffing models. In addition, using technology to improve knowledge among related professionals can help expand access.

Utilization of telehealth in paediatric genome-wide sequencing: Health services implementation issues in the CAUSES Study

INTRODUCTION

Genome-wide sequencing (exome or whole genome) is transforming the care and management of paediatric patients with a rare disease because of its diagnostic capabilities. Genome-wide sequencing is most effective when both parents and the child are sequenced as a trio. Genetic counselling is recommended for all families considering genome-wide sequencing. Although telehealth is well established in genetic counselling for hereditary cancer and prenatal genetics, its use with genome-wide sequencing has not been well studied. The CAUSES Clinic at BC Children's and Women's Hospitals was a translational paediatric trio-based genome-wide sequencing initiative. Pre-test genetic counselling via telehealth (at a clinical site near the family's residence) was offered to families who had been previously evaluated by a clinical geneticist. We report on the first 300 families seen in the CAUSES clinic and compare health services implementation issues of families seen via telehealth versus on-site.

METHODS

Demographics, cost to families (travel and time), time to first appointment, complete trio sample accrual and diagnostic rates were studied.

RESULTS

Of the 300 patients, 58 (19%) were seen via telehealth and 242 (81%) were seen on-site for pre-test counselling. The mean time to completion of accrual of trio samples in the telehealth group was 56.3 (standard deviation ±87.3) days versus 18.9 (standard deviation ±62.4) days in the onsite group (p < 2.2 × 10^-16). The mean per-family estimated actual or potential travel/time cost savings were greater in the telehealth group (Can$987; standard deviation = Can$1151) than for those seen on-site (Can$305; standard deviation = Can$589) (p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth allowed for access to genome-wide sequencing for families in remote communities and for them to avoid significant travel and time costs; however, there was a significant delay to accrual of the complete trio samples in the telehealth group, impacting on time of result reporting and delaying diagnoses for families for whom genome-wide sequencing was diagnostic.

A community-based co-designed genetic health service model for Aboriginal Australians

BACKGROUND

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience a greater burden of disease and die younger than non-Indigenous Australians, with Aboriginal people living in remote areas of the Northern Territory of Australia having the lowest life expectancy estimates. Despite a high burden of chronic disease among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, access to specialist health services remains low and models of care that increase engagement, may improve health outcomes.

METHODS

We describe client and staff perspectives of a model of clinical genetics services provided by the MJD Foundation (MJDF) in geographically and culturally complex contexts within the Northern Territory of Australia. We seek to understand the MJDF model's success in supporting Aboriginal families with the familial, neurodegenerative condition Machado-Joseph disease and how it could be applied in the provision of other specialist services. Thematic analysis was undertaken on semi-structured interviews with primary health care staff (n = 2), Non-Aboriginal MJDF Staff (n = 7) and Aboriginal MJDF Clients / Community workers (n = 13).

RESULTS

Four key themes regarding the MJDF model of service delivery were identified with the service being; 1) client led 2) accepting of various understandings of genetic disease causation 3) focused on relationships, continuity and trust between the service provider and the clients, and 4) committed to incorporating an inclusive whole-of-family practice. The MJDF model takes a community-based, person-and family-centred approach to successfully deliver effective specialist genetic health services in remote community settings. We propose that these approaches have broad application in the future design and delivery of specialist health services particularly in culturally complex settings.

Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers

Many research sponsors and genetic researchers agree that some medically relevant genetic findings should be offered to participants. The scarcity of research specific to returning genetic results related to psychiatric disorders hinders the ability to develop ethically justified and empirically informed guidelines for responsible return of results for these conditions. We surveyed 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries to examine their perceptions of challenges to returning individual results and views about best practices for the process of offering and returning results. Most researchers believed that disclosure of results should be delayed if a patient-participant is experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms. Respondents felt that there is little research on the impact of returning results to participants with psychiatric disorders and agreed that return of psychiatric genetics results to patient-participants may lead to discrimination by insurance companies or other third parties. Almost half of researchers believed results should be returned through a participant's treating psychiatrist, but many felt that clinicians lack knowledge about how to manage genetic research results. Most researchers thought results should be disclosed by genetic counselors or medical geneticists and in person; however, almost half also supported disclosure via telemedicine. This is the first global survey to examine the perspectives of researchers with experience working with this patient population and with these conditions. Their perspectives can help inform the development of much-needed guidelines to promote responsible return of results related to psychiatric conditions to patients with psychiatric disorders.

"They're Not Going to Do Nothing for Me": Research Participants' Attitudes towards Elective Genetic Counseling

As applications of genomic sequencing have expanded, offering genetic counseling support to all patients is arguably no longer practical. Additionally, whether individuals desire and value genetic counseling services for genomic screening is unclear. We offered elective genetic counseling to 5110 individuals prior to undergoing sequencing and 2310 participants who received neutral results to assess demand. A total of 0.2% of the study participants accessed genetic counseling services prior to sequencing, and 0.3% reached out after receiving neutral results. We later conducted 50 interviews with participants to understand why they did not access these services. Many interviewees did not recall the availability of genetic counseling and were unfamiliar with the profession. Interviewees described not needing counseling before sequencing because they understood the study and felt that they could cope with any result. Counseling was considered equally unnecessary after learning neutral results. Although the participants had questions about their results, they did not feel that speaking with a genetic counselor would be helpful. Genomic screening efforts that employ opt-in models of genetic counseling may need to clarify the potential value of genetic counseling support from the outset and feature genetic counseling services more prominently in program materials.

Implementing innovative service delivery models in genetic counseling: a qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers

Given the increasing demand for genetic counseling, implementation of innovative service delivery models (SDMs) has been proposed to improve access and increase the efficiency of genetic counseling services. This study investigated the key considerations in genetic counseling practices that impact the decision to implement innovative SDMs, as well as barriers and facilitators to implementation. A cross-sectional, qualitative research design was employed, using focus groups. Genetic counselors (GCs) were recruited from respondents to an online survey about SDMs and by posting an invitation to the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) listserv. A total of 30 participants participated in either in-person (n = 3) or online (n = 5) focus groups, facilitated by members of the Service Delivery Model subcommittee of the NSGC Access and Service Delivery Committee. Transcribed audio and written notes from the focus groups were coded, utilizing an inductive thematic analysis method. Five overarching themes that impact decisions to implement and use innovative SDMs were identified: (a) Patient volume and efficiency are key motivators in trying innovative SDMs; (b) the decision to change is facilitated by available resources; (c) the implementation of innovative SDMs is multidimensional and complex process; (d) there is concern about the impact on patient-provider relationships with the utilization of innovative SDMs; and (e) measuring outcomes of innovative SDM facilitates acquisition of additional resources and support. Approaches to innovative SDM selection and implementation vary by institution needs, resources, and population as demonstrated by the variety of approaches to similar barriers. Outcomes related to the implementation of innovative SDMs in genetic counseling practice should be measured to demonstrate the value of innovative genetic counseling SDMs, improvement of access to care, and to justify need for additional resources to support implementation of these models.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

Educational and Ethical Considerations for Genetic Test Implementation Within Health Care Systems

Introduction: The precision medicine (PM) era presents unprecedented proliferation of genetic/genomic initiatives, information, and bioinformatic tools to enhance targeted molecular diagnosis and therapeutic treatments. As of February 29, 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Genetic Testing Registry contained 64,860 genetic tests for 12,268 conditions and 18,686 genes from 560 laboratories, and the Food and Drug Administration had 404 entries for pharmacogeneomic biomarkers used in drug labeling. Population-based research initiatives including NIH's All of Us and Veterans Affairs' Million Veteran Program, and the UK Biobank, combine use of genomic biorepositories with electronic medical records (i.e., National Human Genome Research Institute's [NHGRI's] electronic Medical Records and Genomics [eMERGE] Network). Learning health care systems are implementing clinical genomics screening programs and precision oncology programs. However, there are insufficient medical geneticists, nurse geneticists, and genetics counselors to implement expanding number of clinical genetic tests that are required for PM implementation. Methods: A scoping review of current (2014-2019) trends in U.S. genomic medicine translation, PM health care provider workforce education and training resources, and genomic clinical decision support (CDS) implementation tools was conducted. Results: Health care delivery institutions and systems are beginning to implement genetic tests that are driving PM, particularly in the areas of oncology, pharmacogenetics, obstetrics, and prenatal diagnostics. To ensure safe adoption and clinical translation of PM, health care systems have an ethical responsibility to ensure their providers and front-line staff are adequately prepared to order, use, and interpret genetic test information. Conclusion: There are a number of high-quality evidenced-based educational resources and CDS tools available. Strong partnerships between health care system leaders, front-line providers and staff coupled with reasonable goal setting can help drive PM translation interests.

Predictors of genetic beliefs toward cancer risk perceptions among adults in the United States: Implications for prevention or early detection

The objective of this study is to assess predictors of genetic beliefs toward cancer risk perceptions among adults, aged 18 years and over, in the United States (US). Data were obtained from the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Health Information National Trends Survey 2014 (HINTS) 4 Cycle 4. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess factors associated with an individual's beliefs about genetic and cancer risk perceptions. The results showed that African Americans, Non-White Hispanics, Non-Hispanic Asians, individuals with a high school education or less, and annual household incomes less than $20,000 and do not believe that health behaviors play some role in determining whether a person will develop cancer was significantly less likely to report that genetics plays at least some role in whether a person will develop cancer. Findings of this study provide an opportunity for genetic counselors to address beliefs about genetics and cancer risk perceptions among minority populations and promote health equity.

Access to Genetic Counselors in the Southern United States

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing across medical specialties and the changing workforce demographics of certified genetic counselors (CGCs) have led to concerns of a workforce shortage. We assessed the number of genetic counselors working in the Southern United States-a rural and medically underserved region-using various online and professional resources. We identified 683 practicing genetic counselors across the Southern U.S. and 160 specializing in prenatal genetics. CGCs were concentrated in urban areas; counties with a CGC had a significantly higher proportion of minority residents and median household income than counties without a CGC. There is an average of 2.97 prenatal CGCs per 5000 high-risk births in the South. Alternative delivery models are needed to increase access to counseling services in the Southern U.S., particularly for low income households and those of high risk pregnancies. Increased provider education and patient educational materials can help facilitate informed decision-making in prenatal settings as genetic technologies gain a stronger foothold and bring value to medical practice.

Implementation of a Carrier Screening Program in a High-Risk Undergraduate Student Population Using Digital Marketing, Online Education, and Telehealth

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Access to preconception carrier screening, which provides at-risk couples with more reproductive options, is critically important. To address this need in the Jewish community, genetic counselors at Emory University launched JScreen (www.jscreen.org), a national online genetic disease education and carrier screening program. To reach the preconception demographic, JScreen initiated a study evaluating the impact of marketing and education on knowledge and screening activity on college campuses.

METHODS

Students at 10 universities were targeted with a marketing campaign designed for this initiative. Those who elected screening were provided pre-test video education designed for the study. Success was assessed through enrollment in testing, comparison of pre- and post-education knowledge quizzes, and patient satisfaction surveys evaluating genetic counseling and the JScreen process.

RESULTS

A total of 1,794 participants were enrolled. Over 99% of those screened were not pregnant. Knowledge quiz scores improved significantly post-education, and patient satisfaction was over 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggested that the use of targeted marketing helped promote preconception screening in this population. The study demonstrated that video education was effective in educating participants about benefits and limitations of testing. Also, the use of telehealth technology facilitated access to professional genetic counseling services. This study serves as a model for future public health initiatives.

Shared decision making: Implications for return of results from whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing

In this issue, Kaphingst and colleagues report on young breast cancer patient's preferences for learning about various results from genomic sequencing. In our commentary, we discuss the results in light of the burgeoning clinical use of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS). In particular, we consider findings in the context of a Shared Decision Making approach to return of results. We also identify additional important factors to consider that may influence patient preferences that were largely absent from the paper by Kaphingst and colleagues, including cultural context, costs of testing, and provider factors.

Early Outcome Data Assessing Utility of a Post-Test Genomic Counseling Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Precision Health

Information on patients’ preferences is essential to guide the development of more efficient genomic counseling service delivery models. We examined patient preferences in the context of use of a post-test genomic counseling framework on patients (n = 44) with chronic disease receiving online test reports for eight different diseases and one drug-response result. We also explored patients’ disease risk awareness, recall of test report information, and confidence in knowing what to do with their test results. Prior to the post-test genomic counseling session, all participants viewed at least one test report; 81.6% of available test reports were reviewed in total. Participants requested more phone (36) than in-person counseling sessions (8), and phone sessions were shorter (mean 29.1 min; range 12–75 min) than in-person sessions (mean 52.8 min; range 23–85 min). A total of 182 test reports were discussed over the course of 44 counseling sessions (mean 4.13, range 1–9). Thirty-six (81.8%) participants requested assessment for additional medical/family history concerns. In exploring patient experiences of disease risk awareness and recall, no significant differences were identified in comparison to those of participants (n = 199) that had received in-person post-test genomic counseling in a parent study randomized controlled trial (RCT). In summary, a novel post-test genomic counseling framework allowed for a tailored approach to counseling based on the participants’ predetermined choices.

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large-scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre-test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single-gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post-counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow-up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.

Experiences of Genetic Counselors Practicing in Rural Areas

In-person genetic counseling clinics in rural areas are likely to improve access to genetic counseling in underserved regions, but studies have not previously examined how these clinics function or described the experience of practicing in a rural setting. The present mixed-methods study explored the professional experiences of clinical genetic counselors who practice in rural areas, including the benefits and challenges of practicing in these settings and the counselors' motivations for doing so. The authors surveyed 20 genetic counselors who self-reported working in rural areas and conducted interviews with six individuals whose workplaces were confirmed as rural per RUCA code. Major obstacles to the provision of genetics services in rural areas included travel distance and low referral rates due to lack of awareness or skepticism. Facilitating factors included relying on resources such as professional networks and prioritizing outreach and education. Participants reported high professional satisfaction and were motivated to work in rural areas by personal experiences and qualities of the job such as being a generalist and having greater professional autonomy. These data demonstrate the feasibility of practicing in rural settings and suggest that in-person rural genetic counseling clinics may complement other strategies such as alternative service delivery models in increasing access for rural residents.