Theory utilization in current communication of cancer genetic testing research: Identified gaps and opportunities

Applying theories, models, and frameworks to help genetic counselors and students achieve clinical and professional goals

Some genetic counselors (GCs) may find theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) useful in clinical skills selection and when reflecting on or evaluating genetic counseling practice. This paper aims to demonstrate how TMFs can be used to postulate how different skills may impact patients'/clients' decisions, behaviors, and outcomes and consider how multiple TMFs can inform the use of various skills or strategies to achieve different goals. Additionally, we provide examples of TMFs that may help GCs in nonclinical aspects of their work, such as implementing and evaluating new interventions or service delivery models. To guide the selection of appropriate TMFs, we provide a set of questions to consider and include examples of skills and approaches that align with different TMFs. While TMFs provide a structured approach and valuable guidance that may help advance genetic counseling practice, they have certain limitations. Additional research is necessary to determine the effectiveness of using TMFs to guide clinical practice and improve patient/client outcomes.

Linking genetic counseling communication skills to patient outcomes and experiences using a community-engagement and provider-engagement approach: research protocol for the GC-PRO mixed methods sequential explanatory study

INTRODUCTION

In over 50 years since the genetic counseling (GC) profession began, a systematic study of GC communication skills and patient-reported outcomes in actual sessions across multiple clinical specialties has never been conducted. To optimize GC quality and improve efficiency of care, the field must first be able to comprehensively measure GC skills and determine which skills are most critical to achieving positive patient experiences and outcomes. This study aims to characterise GC communication skills using a novel and pragmatic measure and link variations in communication skills to patient-reported outcomes, across clinical specialties and with patients from diverse backgrounds in the USA. Our community-engagement and provider-engagement approach is crucial to develop recommendations for quality, culturally informed GC care, which are greatly needed to improve GC practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed methods, sequential explanatory design will be used to collect and analyze: audio-recorded GC sessions in cancer, cardiac, and prenatal/reproductive genetic indications; pre-visit and post-visit quantitative surveys capturing patient experiences and outcomes and post-visit qualitative interview data. A novel, practical checklist will measure GC communication skills. Coincidence analysis will identify patterns of GC skills that are consistent with high scores on patient-reported measures. Two-level, multilevel models will be used to evaluate how GC communication skills and other session/patient characteristics predict patient-reported outcomes. Four community advisory boards (CABs) and a genetic counselor advisory board will inform the study design and analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the single Institutional Review Board of the University of Minnesota. This research poses no greater than minimal risk to participants. Results from this study will be shared through national and international conferences and through community-based dissemination as guided by the study's CABs. A lay summary will also be disseminated to all participants.

Communication About Negative and Uncertain Results: Interactional Dilemmas During a Genetic Telehealth Consult

This case study focuses on a video telehealth consult to discuss genetic testing results. Participants include a Genetic Counselor (GC) and a Patient (P) previously diagnosed with ovarian cancer who is currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Utilizing conversation analysis (CA), attention is first given to a series of interactional dilemmas as GC delivers and P responds to negative, uncertain, and complex test results. Specific findings address practices employed by GC to structure the encounter and establish authority, impacts on P's participation and understandings, recurring and at times problematic orientations to "negative" findings, and inherent ambiguities faced by GC and P when attempting to discern good and bad news. Close examination of these moments provides a unique opportunity to identify, describe, and explain genetic counseling as a co-produced, interactional achievement. These findings are then integrated with patient's post-counseling survey (susceptibility, anxiety, uncertainty, fear, and hope), including reported experiences which broaden understandings of the interactional environment. Specific recommendations are raised for improving counseling skills, enhancing patients' understandings, and building therapeutic alliances addressing both patients' emotional circumstances and the complexities of genetic test results.

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.