Diffusion of information about genetic risk within families

Patient assessment of chatbots for the scalable delivery of genetic counseling

A barrier to incorporating genomics more broadly is limited access to providers with genomics expertise. Chatbots are a technology-based simulated conversation used in scaling communications. Geisinger and Clear Genetics, Inc. have developed chatbots to facilitate communication with participants receiving clinically actionable genetic variants from the MyCode^® Community Health Initiative (MyCode^® ). The consent chatbot walks patients through the consent allowing them to opt to receive more or less detail on key topics (goals, benefits, risks, etc.). The follow-up chatbot reminds participants of suggested actions following result receipt and the cascade chatbot can be sent to at-risk relatives by participants to share their genetic test results and facilitate cascade testing. To explore the acceptability, usability, and understanding of the study consent, post-result follow-up and cascade testing chatbots, we conducted six focus groups with MyCode^® participants. Sixty-two individuals participated in a focus group (n = 33 consent chatbot, n = 29 follow-up and cascade chatbot). Participants were mostly female (n = 42, 68%), Caucasian (n = 58, 94%), college-educated (n = 33,53%), retirees (n = 38, 61%), and of age 56 years or older (n = 52, 84%). Few participants reported that they knew what a chatbot was (n = 10, 16%), and a small number reported that they had used a chatbot (n = 5, 8%). Qualitative analysis of transcripts and notes from focus groups revealed four main themes: (a) overall impressions, (b) suggested improvements, (c) concerns and limitations, and (d) implementation. Participants supported using chatbots to consent for genomics research and to interact with healthcare providers for care coordination following receipt of genomic results. Most expressed willingness to use a chatbot to share genetic information with relatives. The consent chatbot presents an engaging alternative to deliver content challenging to comprehend in traditional paper or in-person consent. The cascade and follow-up chatbots may be acceptable, user-friendly, scalable approaches to manage ancillary genetic counseling tasks.

Attitudes of physicians and patients towards disclosure of genetic information to spouse and first-degree relatives: a case study from Turkey

Background

When considering the principle of medical confidentiality, disclosure of genetic information constitutes a special case because of the impact that this information can have on the health and the lives of relatives. The aim of this study is to explore the attitudes of Turkish physicians and patients about sharing information obtained from genetic tests.

Methods

The study was carried out in Kocaeli, Turkey. Participants were either paediatricians and gynaecologists registered in Kocaeli, or patients coming to the genetic diagnosis centre for karyotype analysis in 2008. A self-administered paper questionnaire was given to the physicians, and face-to-face structured interviews were conducted with patients. We used a case study involving a man who was found to be a balanced chromosome carrier as a result of a test conducted after his first baby was born with Down's syndrome. However, he refused to share this information with his wife or his siblings. Percentages of characteristics and preferences of the participants were calculated, and the results were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

A total of 155 physicians (68% response rate) and 104 patients (46% response rate) were participated in the study. Twenty-six percent of physicians and 49% of patients believed that genetic information belongs to the whole family. When participants were asked with whom genetic information should be shared for the case study, most of the physicians and patients thought the physician should inform the spouse (79%, 85%, respectively). They were less likely to support a physician informing a sibling (41%, 53%, respectively); whereas, many thought the testee has an obligation to inform siblings (70%, 94%, respectively).

Conclusions

Although Turkey’s national regulations certainly protect the right of privacy of the testee, the participants in our study appear to believe that informing the spouse, who is not personally at risk of serious damage, is the physician’s responsibility, while informing siblings, is the testee’s responsibility. Therefore we believe that opening ethical discussions with clinicians about the sharing of genetic information, establishing guidelines for practice and sharing these guidelines and the reasons behind them with the wider population, will help to pre-empt ethical dilemmas.

A family genetic risk communication framework: guiding tool development in genetics health services

Family communication of genetic risk information is a complex process. Currently, there are no evidence-based interventions to help genetics professionals facilitate the process of disclosure within families. This study was designed to create a framework to assist in the development of tools to support patients in communicating genetic risk information to family members. A systematic review identified the factors relevant in communicating genetic risk information in families. A guiding theory for the proposed framework was selected and populated with the factors identified from the review. The review identified 112 factors of relevance. The theory of planned behaviour was selected to guide framework development, organising the framework in terms of the patient's attitudes about disclosure, perceived pressure to disclose and perceived control over disclosure. Attitudes about disclosure are influenced by a desire to protect oneself or family members, and the patient's perceptions of relevance of the information for family members, responsibility to disclose, family members' rights to information and the usefulness of communicating. Perceived pressure to disclose information is shaped by genetic professionals, family members and society. Perceived control over disclosure is affected by family relationships/dynamics, personal communication skills, the ability of the patient and family to understand the information and coping skills of the patient and family member. The family genetic risk communication framework presents a concise synthesis of the evidence on family communication of genetic information; it may be useful in creating and evaluating tools to help genetic counsellors and patients with communication issues.

Perceived familiarity with and importance of family health history among a medically underserved population

Inadequate knowledge of family health history (FHH) continues to be a major obstacle limiting its usefulness in public health and clinical practice; strategies to facilitate FHH dissemination are needed. Data (N = 1,334) were obtained through waiting-room surveys completed by a diverse sample of patients attending three community health centers. Perceptions about the importance of genetic information (β = 0.13, p < 0.001; β = 0.11, p < 0.001) and higher genetic self-efficacy (β = 0.14, p < 0.001; β = 0.23, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher levels of perceived familiarity with and importance of FHH, respectively. Furthermore, beliefs about genetic causation of illnesses (β = 0.12, p < 0.001) and a wider reach of health communication within one's family (β = 0.15, p < 0.001) were associated with higher levels of perceived familiarity with one's FHH. Participants in the oldest group (>50 years) reported higher familiarity than those in the youngest (18-25 years). Those with higher familiarity were significantly less likely to answer "don't know" when reporting diabetes and heart disease diagnoses among immediate (OR = 0.35 and OR = 0.29, respectively) and extended (OR = 0.50 and OR = 0.46, respectively) family members. Having a wider health communication reach within a family may be beneficial in increasing familiarity with FHH; however, the reported levels of communication reach were limited among most participants. Women, older-generation family members, and those who believe in the importance of genetics in health or feel confident about using genetic information may be particularly important as targets of public health interventions to facilitate FHH dissemination within families.

A qualitative study exploring genetic counsellors' experiences of counselling children

The identification of healthy carriers by newborn screening programmes raises questions about how and when the carrier results will be conveyed to child. There is currently a lack of information concerning how best to convey carrier information to children. This is a serious gap in the literature and practice. This study examined genetic counsellors' experiences of counselling children to explore how to support and inform children about their carrier result. Practising members of the United Kingdom (UK) Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. Respondents described the communication process and identified barriers and facilitators of communication. Age, illness experience and maturity were variously discussed as facilitators; all of which are integral to psychological theories of children's understanding of illness. Adaptive family communication, school tuition and educational materials were also seen as influencing counselling efficacy. Relevant materials that children could keep were also seen as important to enhance children's autonomy. Yet, such resources were rare, constituting a barrier to communication. Counsellors reported communication was further impeded by maladaptive family communication and resistance from children to engaging in counselling. By exploring the facilitators and barriers inherent in communicating genetic information to children, guidance can be offered to counsellors, researchers and parents. This study indicates that some factors (eg illness experiences) previously identified by psychological theories may act in complex ways within this setting. Importantly, the factors identified as being most influential when communicating with children about genetics are amenable to change through interventions, support and training.

Ethical issues of predictive genetic testing for diabetes

With the rising number of individuals affected with diabetes and the significant health care costs of treatment, the emphasis on prevention is key to controlling the health burden of this disease. Several genetic and genomic studies have identified genetic variants associated with increased risk to diabetes. As a result, commercial testing is available to predict an individual's genetic risk. Although the clinical benefits of testing have not yet been demonstrated, it is worth considering some of the ethical implications of testing for this common chronic disease. In this article, I discuss several issues that should be considered during the translation of predictive testing for diabetes, including familial implications, improvement of risk communication, implications for behavioral change and health outcomes, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, direct-to-consumer testing, and appropriate age of testing.

Disclosures of Huntington disease risk within families: patterns of decision-making and implications

Patterns of disclosure of Huntington disease risk and genetic test results among family members are important, but have been underexplored. We interviewed 21 individuals in-depth - eight mutation-positive for HD, four mutation-negative, and nine not tested - for 2 hr each. Within families, critical questions arose of what, when, and to whom to disclose, and what to do post-disclosure. Interviewees wrestled with dilemmas of what to tell (e.g., suspicions vs. confirmed symptoms; initiation vs. completion of testing; partial vs. indirect information), how to disclose (e.g., planning in advance vs. "blurting out" information in arguments), and whether and how to tell extended family members. Questions arose of when to tell (i.e., to avoid disclosing "too early" or "too late"). Similarities and differences emerged related to types of relationships (e.g., parents telling offspring vs. offspring telling parents vs. siblings telling each other). Individuals often disclosed because of perceived duty to foster the health of their family members, enabling these others to pursue appropriate medical evaluation, if desired. Yet tensions arose because the information could burden these members, who also have rights to remain "in denial" if they wish and not discuss the topic or pursue testing. Post-disclosure, dilemmas emerged of whether and how much to encourage family members to pursue testing. These data shed important light on critical issues that have received little, if any, attention concerning what, how, and when disclosure occurs, and have key implications for at-risk individuals, genetic counselors, and other health care workers (HCWs), and for future research. At-risk individuals would benefit from considering these issues in advance. HCWs need to realize that these decisions are multi-faceted. Future research can explore whether, when, how, and how often HCWs raise these issues with individuals.

Family-based detection for hereditary hemochromatosis

The purpose of this study was to examine motivators for and barriers to family-based detection for hereditary hemochromatosis (HH). HH patients (n = 60) and HH siblings (n = 25) participated in one-on-one or group interviews. Patients and siblings understood that HH "runs in families," but not that siblings are at higher HH risk than other family members. Patient motivators included concern for siblings' health, seriousness of untreated HH, and doctor's encouragement to tell siblings that they need to seek diagnostic testing. Siblings were motivated by the seriousness of HH. Barriers included lack of symptoms, belief that HH was rare, and assumption that their doctor would have mentioned the risk of HH. Family-based detection continues to be a feasible part of an overall public health strategy to promote early detection of HH. Greater awareness of HH and its potential consequences, especially among high-risk groups, provides an additional potential avenue for public health action.

Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review

The communication of risk is a central activity in clinical genetics, with genetic health professionals encouraging the dissemination of relevant information by individuals to their at-risk family members. To understand the process by which communication occurs as well as its outcomes, a systematic review of actual communication in families about genetic risk was conducted. Findings from 29 papers meeting the inclusion criteria were summarised and are presented narratively. Family communication about genetic risk is described as a deliberative process, in which: sense is made of personal risk; the vulnerability and receptivity of the family member is assessed; decisions are made about what will be conveyed; and the right time to disclose is selected. The communication strategy adopted will depend on these factors and varies within families as well as between families. Inherent in these processes are conflicting senses of responsibility: to provide potentially valuable information and to prevent harm that may arise from this knowledge. However, the research 'outcomes' of communication have been professionally determined (number of relatives reported as informed, uptake of testing, knowledge of the recipient) and are typically unrelated to the concerns of the family member. The impact of communication on the individual, family members, and family relationships is of concern to the individual conveying the information, but this is largely self-reported. Currently, there is insufficient information to inform the development of theoretically and empirically based practice to foster 'good' communication. The implications for future research are discussed.

Development and Pilot Testing of Two Decision Aids for Individuals Considering Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk

Current practice in genetic counseling may not allow a full deliberation of the consequences of decisions about genetic testing for cancer risk, despite increasing demand for these services. Thus, two decision aids for individuals considering genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) susceptibility were developed and pilot tested with 43 individuals who had previously considered genetic testing for these cancer syndromes. A description of the decision aid development process is provided, as well as results of the pilot testing, which assessed participants' perceptions of the decision aids. All participants reported that they would recommend the decision aid to others facing the same situation, and 93% reported that the decision aid would have been relevant during their decision-making. The perceived impact of the decision aids on participants' emotions and understanding of genetic testing were assessed. Limitations of the study and future directions are discussed.

Improving service evaluation in clinical genetics: identifying effects of genetic diseases on individuals and families

Outcome measurement in clinical genetics is challenging. Outcome attributes used currently have been developed by service providers or adapted from measures used in other areas of healthcare. Many of the 'patients' in clinical genetics are healthy but at risk of developing or transmitting a condition. Usually no pharmacological or surgical treatment is offered, although information-giving is an objective of most consultations. We argue that services should be evaluated on the basis of how well they alleviate the effects of disease, from a patient perspective. This paper describes a qualitative study using seven focus groups with health professionals, patients and patient representatives. Social and emotional effects of genetics diseases were identified. Some differences emerged between the effects identified by health professionals and those identified by patients. These findings will be used to inform the evaluation of existing outcome measures and develop robust measures of outcome for clinical genetics services.

Genetic professionals' reports of nondisclosure of genetic risk information within families

Patients attending genetic clinics are often the main gatekeepers of information for other family members. There has been much debate about the circumstances under which professionals may have an obligation, or may be permitted, to pass on personal genetic information about their clients but without their consent to other family members. We report findings from the first prospective study investigating the frequency with which genetics professionals become concerned about the failure of clients to pass on such information to their relatives. In all, 12 UK and two Australian regional genetic services reported such cases over 12 months, including details of actions taken by professionals in response to the clients' failure to disclose information. A total of 65 cases of non-disclosure were reported, representing <1% of the genetic clinic consultations in the collaborating centres during the study period. These included 39 cases of the failure of parents not passing full information to their adult offspring, 22 cases where siblings or other relatives were not given information and four cases where information was withheld from partners -- including former and prospective partners. Professionals reported clients' reasons for withholding information as complex, more often citing concern and the desire to shield relatives from distress rather than poor family relationships. In most cases, the professionals took further steps to persuade their clients to make a disclosure but in no instance did the professional force a disclosure without the client's consent.

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer family members' perceptions about the duty to inform and health professionals' role in disseminating genetic information

This study's aim was to ascertain hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) families' views on the duty to inform with particular focus on the role of health professionals in disseminating familial genetic information. Eighty members of 16 families with a clinical or molecular diagnosis of HNPCC completed qualitative interviews regarding views on family members' right to know and who should disseminate familial genetic information. Most indicated that everyone in the family should know about the presence of a mutation in the family, with family members themselves being the preferable informant, supported by health professionals who were seen as helpful in overcoming barriers. All but one respondent indicated that if a parent did not test and presumably did not inform his/her child about the family mutation, the child should be informed by other family members or by a health professional. Many were attuned to confidentiality concerns, but judged them to be outweighed by the importance of family members knowing about the mutation and undertaking proper surveillance. Respondents were more private about the disclosure of individual results to other family members, clearly distinguishing personal results from familial genetic information. These families with a hereditary colon cancer syndrome favor open sharing of genetic information within the family, and desire the supportive involvement of health care professionals in disseminating genetic information.

To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk

Communication about genetic risk in families is an important issue for genetic counsellors. The objective of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with patients in the Northeast of Scotland who had attended genetic counselling for risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Huntington's disease, and with some spouses/partners. The interviews confirmed that the issue of disclosure was a problem for some, and that there were generic communication issues common to both groups. Telling family members about genetic risk was generally seen as a family responsibility and family structures, dynamics and 'rules' influenced disclosure decisions. A sense of responsibility towards younger generations was also important. The level of certainty felt by a person in relation to his or her own risk estimate also influenced what he or she could tell other family members. Communication within a family about genetic risk is a complex issue and is influenced by both pre-existing familial and cultural factors and individuals' responses to risk information. If genetic counsellors understood how these factors operate in individual families they might be able to identify effective strategies to promote considered decisions and prevent unnecessary emotional distress.

Genetic privacy

During the past 10 years, the number of genetic tests performed more than tripled, and public concern about genetic privacy emerged. The majority of states and the U.S. government have passed regulations protecting genetic information. However, research has shown that concerns about genetic privacy are disproportionate to known instances of information misuse. Beliefs in genetic determinacy explain some of the heightened concern about genetic privacy. Discussion of the debate over genetic testing within families illustrates the most recent response to genetic privacy concerns.

Communication about carrier testing within hemophilia A families

Genetic diseases are family diseases. Although there is considerable research on how individuals decide to have genetic testing and their individual reactions to testing, there is limited research on the familial context of genetic testing. In the present study, we focus on three aspects of the family context of genetic testing for hemophilia A carrier status among women at risk to be carriers. We look at the extent to which there was discussion of carrier testing for hemophilia before we offered DNA-based carrier testing to these at-risk women; with which family members these tested women communicated the results of their carrier testing; and concerns these women had about communicating their carrier test results with relatives, including their children. Data suggest that members of families with hemophilia discussed carrier testing prior to study participation, that the communication of testing information within families was selective, not universal, largely following gender lines for this X-linked disorder, and that there was limited concern about communicating carrier status information to children and other relatives. These data reinforce observations that families are social systems, and within these systems information is selectively communicated. A more complete understanding of how families communicate genetic test information will enable providers to develop more effective means of assisting individuals in handling the familial communication aspects of genetic testing.

Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 results to at-risk relatives: a cancer risk assessment program's experience

We describe results from a survey designed to assess patterns of communication within families shortly after an individual receives results of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier status. Shortly after disclosure of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results, the proband was contacted by phone to administer the post disclosure survey. Questions asked included whether they had shared their results with their siblings or adult children, if there were difficulties in communicating the test results, and if there was any distress associated with the sharing of results. A total of 162 women who have received results from BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing participated in the survey. The probands shared their results more often with their female than their male relatives (P < 0.001). Probands who had tested positive for a mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene shared their results more often with their relatives than did probands who were not carriers (P = 0.002). Probands reported more often that their siblings rather than their adult children had difficulties understanding the results (P = 0.001). The probands who were carriers more often reported having difficulties explaining their results to their relatives (P < 0.001) and their relatives were upset on hearing the result more often than were the relatives of probands who were not carriers (P < 0.001). The probands who were carriers reported more often that they were upset explaining their results to their relatives than did the probands who were not carriers (P < 0.001). Individuals are disclosing their test results to their relatives. Probands who are BRCA1- or BRCA2-positive are more likely to experience difficulty and distress with the communication of their test results to family members.

Effect of family history on disclosure patterns of cystic fibrosis carrier status

As general population screening becomes more common, an increasing number of cystic fibrosis (CF) carriers will be identified who do not have a family history of CF. Whether these carriers inform their relatives of their carrier status and whether their relatives are motivated to pursue carrier screening is unknown. We surveyed CF carriers with and without a family history of CF to understand whether and how information dissemination patterns differ, why information is or is not shared, and to what extent relatives are known to undergo testing. CF carriers were identified from a general population carrier screening clinic (group B = 18) or were parents of affected children followed at a CF clinic (group A = 30). CF carriers with a family history told essentially 100% of their living parents, siblings, and half-siblings, while those without a family history told 84% of living parents and 56% of siblings (P < 0.05). Despite the high rate of information dissemination in both groups, few siblings were known to have undergone carrier screening (14/74). Significantly fewer second- and third-degree relatives were informed about carrier status or were known to have undergone carrier screening. Group A was more likely to inform second- and third-degree relatives about carrier status. Our study documents that the frequency and reasons for disclosing CF carrier status differ between individuals with and without a family history of CF despite the fact that the reproductive risks for their relatives are the same.

Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients

The psychological aspects of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in cancer patients (diagnostic genetic testing) have so far received less attention than predictive genetic testing in unaffected persons. Our study is aimed at gaining insight into the psychological aspects of diagnostic genetic testing and at formulating practical recommendations for counseling. Cancer patients often play a key role in the communication of information to relatives because they were the first individuals to be tested in the family. The present article focuses on the communication to close and distant relatives about the hereditary cancer, the genetic test and its result. Participants previously diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer, with a family history of these cancers and who requested DNA-testing, were eligible for the study. Of the 83 eligible patients who could be contacted, 63 participated (response rate = 76%). Twenty-six participants were members of a family where a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation was detected. The DNA-analysis in the family of 37 participants had not revealed any mutation. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews and psychological tests and questionnaires. The dissemination of information was largely focused on first-degree relatives. Communication to distant relatives about the genetic test and its result was problematic. Other than the genetic test result and age as "objective" predictors of informing distant relatives, little and/or superficial contact seemed to be the major subjective barrier to informing distant relatives. Furthermore, the knowledge about HBOC of these messengers reveals several shortcomings. Communication within the family should receive special attention during counseling.

Communicating genetic test results to the family: a six-step, skills-building strategy

As the availability of tests to identify hereditary predisposition to chronic diseases continues to grow, a need has arisen to prepare individuals receiving genetic test results to share this highly sophisticated and value-laden information with other at-risk family members. Responding to this need, a communication skills-building intervention, based on Buckman's model of "Breaking Bad News," was developed for use in the setting of genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Outcomes will include knowledge, attitudes, and health behavior on the part of both the proband and her first-degree relatives.

Disclosure to the family of breast/ovarian cancer genetic test results: patient's willingness and associated factors

Informed probands are key actors for disclosing genetic information to their relatives when a mutation has been identified in the family. The objectives were to study women's attitudes towards the family disclosure of positive breast cancer genetic testing results and to determine the predictive factors of the diffusion patterns observed. A national multi-center cross-sectional survey was carried out at five French cancer genetic clinics during a 1-year period. Self-administered questionnaires were completed after the consultation by 84.5% (398/471) of women attending breast cancer genetic clinics for the first time. Among the 383 respondents who had at least one living first-degree relative to inform, 8.6% would inform none, 33.2% would inform at least one of them, and 58.2% would inform all of them. The sibship would be the most frequently informed blood relatives, sisters in 86.9% and brothers in 79% compared with mother in 71.4%, children in 70.4%, and father in 64.9%. Women of the family would be more frequently informed than men (P < 0.05). After multivariate adjustment, age, the fact to be affected by cancer, the number of daughters, and the emotional disturbance due to cancer in a close relationship were the main determinants (P < 0.05) of the diffusion patterns observed. The first step of the relatives' attendance to genetic counseling and the proband's willingness to disclose breast cancer genetic tests results was high in this study and was clearly dependent on the women's personal and emotional characteristics.

Communicating cancer risk information: the challenges of uncertainty

Developments in predictive testing for inherited cancers have focused attention on the accurate and sensitive communication of risk information. Although sharing risk information is often equated with genetic testing, it is important to acknowledge that the need for risk information related to familial cancer is also relevant to those not eligible for, or interested in, testing. Communicating cancer risk information is germane to a number of health professions including physicians, geneticists, genetic counsellors, psychologists, nurses, health educators and social workers. Based on a literature review of 75 research reports, expert opinion papers and clinical protocols, we provide a synthesis of what is known about the communication of cancer risk information and make recommendations for the enhancement of knowledge and practice in the field.

DNA testing for fragile X syndrome: implications for parents and family

The fragile X syndrome is an X linked, semidominant mental retardation disorder caused by the amplification of a CGG repeat in the 5' UTR of the FMR1 gene. Nineteen fragile X families in which the mutated FMR1 gene segregated were evaluated. The implications of the diagnosis for the parents and family were studied through pedigree information, interviews, and questionnaires. Information about the heredity of fragile X syndrome was only disseminated by family members to a third (124/366) of the relatives with an a priori risk of being a carrier of the fragile X syndrome. Twenty-six percent (94/366) of the relatives were tested. Transmission of information among first degree relatives seemed satisfactory but dropped off sharply with increasing distance of the genetic relationship, leaving 66% uninformed. This is particularly disadvantageous in an X linked disease. Of those subjects tested, 42% (39/94) had a premutation and 18% (17/94) had a full mutation. On average, in each family one new fragile X patient and two new carriers were found. When people have the task of transmitting genetic information to their relatives, they usually feel responsible and capable; however, reduced acquaintance and contact with more distant relative severely reduces the effectiveness of such transfer of information in fragile X families.

Attitudes towards cancer predictive testing and transmission of information to the family

Before the organisation of breast cancer predictive testing in France, consultands' attitudes towards this kind of testing and towards passing on information about the family cancer risk to their relatives were investigated. This survey was carried out from January 1994 to January 1995 at six specialised cancer genetic clinics located in different parts of France Female consultands who were first degree relatives of cancer patients and who had at least one case of breast cancer in their family, affecting either themselves or a first degree relative or both, participated in this study. Among the 248 eligible consultands attending the clinics during the study period, 84.3% answered a post-consultation questionnaire. Among the 209 respondents, 40.7% (n = 85) were cancer patients and 59.3% (n = 124) were healthy consultands. A high consensus in favour of genetic testing was noted, since 87.7% of the sample stated that they would ask for breast cancer gene testing if this test became available. The underlying assumption of 96.6% of the women was that their health surveillance would be improved after a positive test. A high awareness of the anxiety that would be generated in a family after a positive result was observed and found to be associated (p < 0.05) with the anxiety and depressive profiles of the patients. Half of the healthy respondents said they would not change their attitude towards screening if the results of predictive testing turned out to be negative. Only 13.7% of the 161 patients who stated that the oncogeneticists asked them to contact their relatives firmly refused to do so, mainly because of difficult family relationships.