Quality issues concerning genetic counselling for presymptomatic testing: a European Delphi study

A new scale informed by the Reciprocal-Engagement Model for quality evaluation of genetic counselling by patients: Development and initial validation

Monitoring the quality of genetic counselling is essential to ensure appropriate provision. This study describes the development and initial psychometric validation of a novel scale for genetic counselling quality evaluation by patients. A deductive approach was taken to formulate scale items. Exploratory factor analysis with the principal axis factoring method was used to assess the scale's factor structure (n = 118). Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) was also examined. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a single overarching construct consisting of seven factors, which account for 59% of the variance explained. Items showed, in general, strong factor loadings (>0.5). Some items focused on patient satisfaction with services provision did not load onto the factors. Thus, another factor analysis was performed with these items, which resulted in one-factor. The identified factor accounted for 57% of variance explained, and communalities were strong (≥0.5) for most items. Cronbach's alpha score for the scale was 0.85, indicating high internal consistency. Factors were significantly and moderately interrelated (from r = 0.31 to r = 0.71). Further studies are needed to establish the psychometric validity of the scale.

Genetic counseling and testing practices for late-onset neurodegenerative disease: a systematic review

Objective

To understand contemporary genetic counseling and testing practices for late-onset neurodegenerative diseases (LONDs), and identify whether practices address the internationally accepted goals of genetic counseling: interpretation, counseling, education, and support.

Methods

Four databases were systematically searched for articles published from 2009 to 2020. Peer-reviewed research articles in English that reported research and clinical genetic counseling and testing practices for LONDs were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted to describe different practices and map genetic counseling activities to the goals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Qualsyst tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019121421).

Results

Sixty-one studies from 68 papers were included. Most papers focused on predictive testing (58/68) and Huntington’s disease (41/68). There was variation between papers in study design, study population, outcomes, interventions, and settings. Although there were commonalities, novel and inconsistent genetic counseling practices were identified. Eighteen papers addressed all four goals of genetic counseling.

Conclusion

Contemporary genetic counseling and testing practices for LONDs are varied and informed by regional differences and the presence of different health providers. A flexible, multidisciplinary, client- and family-centered care continues to emerge. As genetic testing becomes a routine part of care for patients (and their relatives), health providers must balance their limited time and resources with ensuring clients are safely and effectively counseled, and all four genetic counseling goals are addressed. Areas of further research include diagnostic and reproductive genetic counseling/testing practices, evaluations of novel approaches to care, and the role and use of different health providers in practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-021-10461-5.

A Delphi study to prioritize genetic counseling outcomes: What matters most

Research on genetic counseling outcomes has examined a range of metrics many that differ in quality and extent of psychometric assessment and in some cases fail to encompass potential benefits of genetic counseling for patients. Although a variety of possible outcomes have been explored, selecting the most important or relevant outcomes and identifying well-validated measures remain challenging. An online, modified Delphi method was used to prioritize genetic counseling outcomes from the viewpoint of individuals from four stakeholder groups - clinical genetic counselors, outcome researchers, genetic counseling training directors, and genetic counseling consumers/advocates. A survey of 181 genetic counseling outcomes were rated based on perceived importance and then sorted and categorized using the Framework for Outcomes of Clinical Communication Services in Genetic Counseling (FOCUS-GC) framework. Three of the FOCUS-GC domains (Process, Patient Care Experience, and Patient Changes) were assessed as most important, while none of the most highly rated outcomes fell into the domains of Patient Health or Family Changes. The majority of outcomes deemed most important by stakeholder groups were within the process domain. When looking at the proportion of outcomes that overlapped with the consumer group, clinical genetic counselors had the highest degree of similarity with consumers when looking at the high relative importance band outcomes (61.1% overlap), followed by training directors (58.3%), and outcome researchers (41.7%). Variability in importance according to stakeholder groups was an important consideration and prioritizing outcomes was challenging given that the majority of outcomes were rated as important. Working to bridge the realities of clinical care and fundamental differences in the viewpoints and priorities of genetic counseling research directions is an area for future exploration.

Primary care providers' lived experiences of genetics in practice

To effectively translate genetic advances into practice, engagement of primary care providers (PCPs) is essential. Using a qualitative, phenomenological methodology, we analyzed key informant interviews and focus groups designed to explore perspectives of urban and rural PCPs. PCPs endorsed a responsibility to integrate genetics into their practices and expected advances in genetic medicine to expand. However, PCPs reported limited knowledge and difficulties accessing resources, experts, and continuing education. Rural practitioners’ additional concerns included cost, distance, and poor patient engagement. PCPs’ perspectives are crucial to develop relevant educational and systems-based interventions to further expand genetic medicine in primary care.

SEED: the six excesses (Liu Yin) evaluation and diagnosis scale

Background

Infections such as common colds, influenza, acute upper respiratory infections, bacterial gastroenteritis, and urinary tract infections are usually diagnosed according to patients’ signs and symptoms. This study aims to develop a scale for the diagnosis of infectious diseases based on the six excesses (Liu Yin) etiological theory of Chinese medicine (CM) by the Delphi method.

Methods

A total of 200 CM-guided diagnostic items measuring signs and symptoms for infectious diseases were compiled from CM literature archives from the Han to Ming dynasties, CM textbooks in both China and Taiwan, and journal articles from the China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database. The items were based on infections and the six excesses (Liu Yin) etiological theory, i.e., Feng Xie (wind excess), Han Xie (coldness excess), Shu Xie (summer heat excess), Shi Xie (dampness excess), Zao Xie (dryness excess), and Huo Xie (fire excess). The items were further classified into the six excess syndromes and reviewed via a Delphi process to reach consensus among CM experts.

Results

In total, 178 items with a mean or median rating of 7 or above on a scale of 1–9 from a panel of 32 experts were retained. The numbers of diagnostic items in the categories of Feng (wind), Han (coldness), Shu (summer heat), Shi (dampness), Zao (dryness), and Huo (fire) syndromes were 15, 22, 25, 37, 17, and 62, respectively.

Conclusions

A CM-based six excesses (Liu Yin) evaluation and diagnosis (SEED) scale was developed for the evaluation and diagnosis of infectious diseases based only on signs and symptoms.