Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing

Perceptions of primary care patients on the use of electronic clinical decision support tools to facilitate health care: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) are interventions designed to facilitate clinical decision-making using targeted medical knowledge and patient information. While eCDSTs have been demonstrated to improve quality of care, there is a paucity of research relating to the acceptability of eCDSTs in primary care from the patients' perspective. This study aims to summarize current evidence relating to primary care patients' perceptions and experiences on the use of eCDSTs by their clinician to provide care.

METHODS

Four databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library) were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies with outcomes relating to patients' perceptions of the use of clinician-facing or shared-eCDSTs. Data extraction and critical appraisal using the Johanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklists were carried out independently by reviewers. Qualitative and quantitative outcomes were synthesized independently. We used Richardson et al. 'Patient Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Healthcare' framework for qualitative analysis.

FINDINGS

20 papers were included for synthesis. eCDSTs were generally well-regarded by patients. The key facilitators for use were promoting informed decision-making, prompting discussions, aiding clinical decision-making, and enabling information sharing. Key barriers for use were lack of holistic care, 'medicalized' language, and confidentiality concerns.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified important aspects to consider in the development of future eCDSTs. Patients were generally positive regarding the use of eCDSTs; however, patient's perspectives should be included from the conception of new eCDSTs to ensure recommendations align with the needs of patients and clinicians.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study results contribute to ensuring the acceptability of eCDSTs for patients and their unique needs. Encouragement is given for future development to adopt and build upon these findings. Additional research focusing on patients' perceptions of using eCDSTs for specific health conditions is deemed necessary.

Online Provision of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Health Information: A Search Engine Driven Systematic Web-Based Analysis

BRCA genetic testing is available for UK Jewish individuals but the provision of information online for BRCA is unknown. We aimed to evaluate online provision of BRCA information by UK organisations (UKO), UK Jewish community organisations (JCO), and genetic testing providers (GTP). Google searches for organisations offering BRCA information were performed using relevant sets of keywords. The first 100 website links were categorised into UKOs/JCOs/GTPs; additional JCOs were supplemented through community experts. Websites were reviewed using customised questionnaires for BRCA information. Information provision was assessed for five domains: accessibility, scope, depth, accuracy, and quality. These domains were combined to provide a composite score (maximum score = 5). Results were screened (n = 6856) and 45 UKOs, 16 JCOs, and 18 GTPs provided BRCA information. Accessibility was high (84%,66/79). Scope was lacking with 35% (28/79) addressing >50% items. Most (82%, 65/79) described BRCA-associated cancers: breast and/or ovarian cancer was mentioned by 78%(62/79), but only 34% (27/79) mentioned ≥1 pancreatic, prostate, melanoma. Few websites provided carrier frequencies in the general (24%,19/79) and Jewish populations (20%,16/79). Only 15% (12/79) had quality information with some/minimal shortcomings. Overall information provision was low-to-moderate: median scores UKO = 2.1 (IQR = 1), JCO = 1.6 (IQR = 0.9), and GTP = 2.3 (IQR = 1) (maximum-score = 5). There is a scarcity of high-quality BRCA information online. These findings have implications for UK Jewish BRCA programmes and those considering BRCA testing.

Interventions to support decision making in people considering germline genetic testing for BRCA 1/2 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants: A scoping review

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are medically actionable and may inform hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) treatment and prevention. However, rates of germline genetic testing (GT) in people with and without cancer are suboptimal. Individuals' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs may influence GT decisions. While genetic counseling (GC) provides decision support, the supply of genetic counselors is insufficient to meet demand. Accordingly, there is a need to explore the evidence on interventions that aim to support BRCA1/2 testing decisions. We conducted a scoping review of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO using search terms related to HBOC, GT, and decision making. First, we screened records to identify peer-reviewed reports that described interventions to support BRCA1/2 testing decisions. Next, we reviewed full-text reports and excluded studies that lacked statistical comparisons or enrolled previously tested individuals. Finally, we extracted study characteristics and findings into a table. All records and reports were reviewed independently by two authors; decisions were tracked in Rayyan, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Of 2116 unique citations, 25 met the eligibility criteria. Articles were published between 1997 and 2021 and described randomized trials and nonrandomized, quasi-experimental studies. Most studies tested technology-based (12/25, 48%) or written (9/25, 36%) interventions. Nearly half (12/25, 48%) of interventions were designed to complement traditional GC. Of the interventions compared to GC, 75% (6/8) increased or had a noninferior effect on knowledge, and 67% (4/6) decreased or had a noninferior effect on decisional conflict. Intervention effects on GT uptake were mixed, which may reflect evolving eligibility criteria for GT. Our findings suggest novel interventions may promote informed GT decision making, but many were developed to complement traditional GC. Trials that assess the effects of decision support interventions in diverse samples and evaluate implementation strategies for efficacious interventions are warranted.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with cancer genetic counseling

PURPOSE

Genetic counseling (GC) is standard of care in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). A rigorous assessment of the data reported from published studies is crucial to ensure the evidence-based implementation of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 patient-reported and health-services-related outcomes associated with pre- and post-test GC in GCRA in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-five of 5393 screened articles met inclusion criteria. No articles reporting post-test GC outcomes met inclusion criteria. For patient-reported outcomes, pre-test GC significantly decreased worry, increased knowledge, and decreased perceived risk but did not significantly affect patient anxiety, depression, decisional conflict, satisfaction, or intent to pursue genetic testing. For health-services outcomes, pre-test GC increased correct genetic test ordering, reduced inappropriate services, increased spousal support for genetic testing, and expedited care delivery but did not consistently improve cancer prevention behaviors nor lead to accurate risk assessment. The GRADE certainty in the evidence was very low or low. No included studies elucidated GC effect on mortality, cascade testing, cost-effectiveness, care coordination, shared decision making, or patient time burden.

CONCLUSION

The true impact of GC on relevant outcomes is not known low quality or absent evidence. Although a meta-analysis found that pre-test GC had beneficial effects on knowledge, worry, and risk perception, the certainty of this evidence was low according to GRADE methodology. Further studies are needed to support the evidence-based application of GC in GCRA.

Factors associated with adherence to BRCA1/2 mutation testing after oncogenetic counseling in long-surviving patients with a previous diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer

BRCA1/2 mutations account for 5 to 10% of breast and 15% of ovarian cancers. Various guidelines on BRCA1/2 genetic counseling and testing have been issued, and the criteria have evolved over the years. Oncogenetic counseling aims to inform patients about the possibility and implications of undergoing predictive testing and risk management programs. We analyzed a cohort of 50 subjects with a previous personal history of breast or ovarian cancer who had not been tested for BRCA1/2 mutations at the time of diagnosis but were found eligible according to the most recent guidelines. All patients were offered pre-test oncogenetic counseling and BRCA1/2 genetic testing. The mean time from cancer diagnosis to genetic counseling was over 10 years. We analyzed socio-demographic and psychological parameters associated with the decision to undergo BRCA1/2 genetic testing or the reasons behind the withdrawal. Thirty-nine patients underwent BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Patients who accept the genetic test communicate more easily with family members than those who refuse. Factors associated with test refusal are having a long-term partner and having a negative perception of life. There is a trend, although not statistically significant, toward younger age at cancer diagnosis, more likely to participate in cancer screening programs (71.8% vs. 45.5%), and more likely to have daughters (63.3% vs. 37.5%) in the group that accepted the test. The offer of BRCA testing was well accepted by our study population, despite the many years since the cancer diagnosis. With the perspective of further broadening the access criteria to genetic testing, it is important to understand how to best approach pre-test counseling in long-surviving patients with a previous diagnosis of cancer.

Investigating men's motivations to engage in genetic screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are associated with an increased risk of developing numerous cancers, including breast, ovarian, pancreatic, melanoma and prostate cancer. Men face BRCA-related cancer risks as women do. However, there is considerably less research on the psychological determinants of men engaging in BRCA1/2-related cancer prevention compared to women. The present research aimed to study the determinants of men’s motivations to engage in genetic screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2 through the lens of the Health Action Process Approach. One hundred and twenty-five men (mean age = 58.53 y/o, SD = 10.37) completed an online survey. The intention to undergo genetic screening for BRCA1/2 mutations in men was significantly and positively associated with self-efficacy and risk perception. Moreover, having offspring positively affected intention as well. The relationships between intention (and planning) and positive outcome expectancies, age, and family history of breast-related cancer were not statistically significant. Most information on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is tailored to women due to the availability of effective surgical risk reduction procedures for women’s breast and ovarian cancer. Future research should focus on the best methods of communicating informed decision-making for men facing the risk of such mutations.

Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing.

Jewish cultural and religious factors and uptake of population-based BRCA testing across denominations: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of Jewish cultural and religious identity and denominational affiliation with interest in, intention to undertake and uptake of population-based BRCA (Breast Cancer Gene)-testing.

DESIGN

Cohort-study set within recruitment to GCaPPS-trial (ISRCTN73338115).

SETTING

London Ashkenazi-Jewish (AJ) population.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

AJ men and women, >18 years.

METHODS

Participants were self-referred, and attended recruitment clinics (clusters) for pre-test counselling. Subsequently consenting individuals underwent BRCA testing. Participants self-identified to one Jewish denomination: Conservative/Liberal/Reform/Traditional/Orthodox/Unaffiliated. Validated scales measured Jewish Cultural-Identity (JI) and Jewish Religious-identity (JR). Four-item Likert-scales analysed initial 'interest' and 'intention to test' pre-counselling. Item-Response-Theory and graded-response models, modelled responses to JI and JR scales. Ordered/multinomial logistic regression modelling evaluated association of JI-scale, JR-scale and Jewish Denominational affiliation on interest, intention and uptake of BRCA testing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Interest, intention, uptake of BRCA testing.

RESULTS

In all, 935 AJ women/men of mean age = 53.8 (S.D = 15.02) years, received pre-test education and counselling through 256 recruitment clinic clusters (median cluster size = 3). Denominational affiliations included Conservative/Masorti = 91 (10.2%); Liberal = 82 (9.2%), Reform = 135 (15.1%), Traditional = 212 (23.7%), Orthodox = 239 (26.7%); and Unaffiliated/Non-practising = 135 (15.1%). Overall BRCA testing uptake was 88%. Pre-counselling, 96% expressed interest and 60% intention to test. JI and JR scores were highest for Orthodox, followed by Conservative/Masorti, Traditional, Reform, Liberal and Unaffiliated Jewish denominations. Regression modelling showed no significant association between overall Jewish Cultural or Religious Identity with either interest, intention or uptake of BRCA testing. Interest, intention and uptake of BRCA testing was not significantly associated with denominational affiliation.

CONCLUSIONS

Jewish religious/cultural identity and denominational affiliation do not appear to influence interest, intention or uptake of population-based BRCA testing. BRCA testing was robust across all Jewish denominations.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Jewish cultural/religious factors do not affect BRCA testing, with robust uptake seen across all denominational affiliations.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.

Purpose

To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.

Study Selection

We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.

Data Synthesis

Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ² = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ² = 6.08, P = 0.05).

Limitations

Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Facilitated cascade testing (FaCT): a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Identifying mutation-carrying relatives of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes via cascade testing is an underused first step in primary cancer prevention. A feasibility study of facilitated genetic testing of at-risk relatives of patients with a known pathogenic mutation demonstrated encouraging uptake of cascade testing.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

Our primary objective is to compare the proportion of genetic testing of identified first-degree relatives of probands with a confirmed BRCA1/2 mutation randomized to a facilitated cascade testing strategy versus standard of care, proband-mediated, information sharing.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesize that facilitated cascade testing will drive significantly higher uptake of genetic testing than the standard of care.

TRIAL DESIGN

The FaCT (Facilitated Cascade Testing) trial is a prospective multi-institutional randomized study comparing the efficacy of a multicomponent facilitated cascade testing intervention with the standard of care. Patients with a known BRCA1/2 mutation (probands) cared for at participating sites will be randomized. Probands randomized to the standard of care group will be instructed to share a family letter with their first-degree relatives and encourage them to complete genetic testing. First-degree relatives of probands randomized to the intervention arm will receive engagement strategies with a patient navigator, an educational video, and accessible genetic testing services.

MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Adult participants who are first-degree relatives of a patient with a BRCA1/2 mutation and have not had prior genetic testing will be included.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

Analyses will assess the proportion of first-degree relatives identified by the proband who complete genetic testing by 6 months in the intervention arm versus the control arm.

SAMPLE SIZE

One hundred and fifty probands with a BRCA1/2 mutation will be randomized. Each proband is expected to provide an average of 3 relatives, for an expected 450 participants.

ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS

January 2024.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04613440.

Guidance and/or Decision Coaching with Patient Decision Aids: Scoping Reviews to Inform the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)

INTRODUCTION

In 2005, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration identified guidance and decision coaching as important dimensions of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and developed a set of quality criteria. We sought to update definitions, theoretical rationale, and evidence for guidance and/or decision coaching used within or alongside PtDAs for the IPDAS update 2.0.

METHODS

We conducted 2 scoping reviews on guidance and decision coaching, including systematic searches and a hand search of the Cochrane Review on PtDAs. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on guidance or decision coaching used with/alongside PtDAs. Data, including conceptual models, were summarized narratively and with meta-analyses when appropriate.

RESULTS

Of 1022 citations, we found no RCTs that evaluated guidance in PtDAs. The 2013 definition for guidance was endorsed, and we made minimal changes to the description of guidance. Of 3039 citations, we identified 21 RCTs on decision coaching informed by 5 conceptual models stating that people exposed to decision coaching are more likely to progress in making informed decisions consistent with their values. Compared to usual care, decision coaching with PtDAs led to improved knowledge mean difference [MD], 19.5/100; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0-29.0; 5 RCTs). Compared to decision coaching alone, PtDAs led to a small improvement in knowledge (MD, 3.6/100; 95% CI, 1.0-6.3; 3 RCTs). There were variable effects on other outcomes. We simplified the decision coaching definition slightly and defined minimal decision coaching elements.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence on which to propose changes in guidance in IPDAS. Decision coaching is continuing to be used alongside PtDAs, but there is inadequate evidence on the added effectiveness compared to PtDAs alone. The decision coaching definition was updated with minimal elements.

Alzheimer Disease Worries, Fears, and Stigma and Their Relationship to Genetic and Interventional Research Engagement

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer disease (AD) research increasingly requires healthy individuals willing to undergo genetic testing.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to: (1) describe older adults' beliefs about AD genetic testing, worry about AD, and fear of AD stigma, and (2) explore how these constructs relate to research participation.

METHODS

Surveys were sent to participants active in AD-observational research and those that were not. Three measures of research participation were explored: (1) being a current research participant, (2) self-report of clinical trial participation, and (3) expressing genetic registry interest.

RESULTS

The majority of the 502 respondents perceived greater benefit than the risk associated with AD genetic testing. AD worry and perceptions of AD stigma were low. Higher levels of AD worry and lower perceptions of AD stigma were associated with being a current AD research volunteer. AD worry and stigma were unrelated to clinical trial participation or genetic registry interest; these research participation measures were associated with AD genetic testing benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Beliefs about AD genetic testing, AD worry, and AD stigma are related to research participation, but relationships vary based on the research participation investigated. Future work should identify how these findings can inform outreach and recruitment efforts.

Mechanisms to increase cascade testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: Impact of introducing standardized communication aids into genetic counseling

AIM

Precancer identification of women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) could prevent 20% of these ovarian cancers. The objective was to determine whether standardized Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE) materials are acceptable, improve knowledge of HBOC and increase disclosure to family members.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of women with breast or ovarian cancer was identified prior to genetic testing. Subjects completed a baseline knowledge survey and were provided three communication aids. Knowledge, acceptability and communication to family members were reassessed at 6 months and compared to a retrospective cohort who had undergone genetic testing for breast or ovarian cancer prior to the intervention. The primary outcome was increase in HBOC knowledge, requiring 20 pre- and postknowledge scores to detect a 10% difference.

RESULTS

Forty women were enrolled. The median age at cancer diagnosis was 50 years and 55% had a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Though subjects found the resources acceptable, knowledge scores did not improve after their use. Disclosure rates were of no different between cohorts (83% preintervention vs 77% postintervention, P = 0.26) though there was an increase in deleterious mutation carriers, 0% (0/6) preintervention vs 100% (22/22) postintervention. Rates of subsequent testing in relatives were low in both preintervention and postintervention cohorts (0% vs 4.5%).

CONCLUSION

Inclusion of standardized communication tools is acceptable to patients. Knowledge did not improve after their use. In deleterious mutation carriers, disclosure rates increased postintervention.

Implementation and evaluation of a nurse-led decision-coaching program for healthy breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers: a study protocol for the randomized controlled EDCP-BRCA study

Background

Female BRCA mutation carriers have an increased lifetime risk for breast and ovarian cancer compared to the general population. Women who carry this mutation have several options to deal with their cancer risk, such as risk-reducing surgeries or intensified breast cancer screening. Previous research has shown that preferences in this scenario are highly dependent on affected women’s personalities and value systems. To support these women in the decision-making process, a structured decision support consisting of decision coaching combined with a decision aid might be helpful.

Methods/design

A randomized controlled trial will be conducted in order to compare usual care with structured decision support alongside usual care. The decision support program entails nurse-led decision coaching as well as an evidence-based patient decision aid. Nurses are qualified by a 4-day training program in informed decision-making and decision coaching. Six centers for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Germany will be included in the study, with a planned sample size of 398 women.

The primary outcome is the congruence between the preferred and the actual played role in the decision-making process as measured by the Control Preferences Scale. It is hypothesized that the structured decision support will enable women to play the preferred role in the decision-making process. Secondary outcomes include the knowledge and attitudes about preventive options, decisional conflict, depression and anxiety, coping self-efficacy, impact of event, and self-concept. A process evaluation will accompany the study.

Discussion

The EDCP-BRCA study is the first study to implement and evaluate decision coaching combined with a decision aid for healthy BRCA mutation carriers worldwide.

Trial registration {2a}

DRKS-ID: DRKS00015527. Registered 30 October 2019.

Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention for low risk prostate cancer patients

Objectives

Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention to help men with early‐stage prostate cancer choose among active surveillance, surgery, and radiation.

Methods

We developed a decision aid featuring long‐term survival and side effects data, based on focus group input and stakeholder endorsement. We trained premedical students to administer the intervention to newly diagnosed men with low‐risk prostate cancer seen at the University of California, San Francisco. Before the intervention, and after the consultation with a urologist, we administered the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer (DQI‐PC). We hypothesized increases in two knowledge items from the DQI‐PC: How many men diagnosed with early‐stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: “Most will die of something else” and “A little or not at all.”

Results

The development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers. In our pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed knowledge surveys at both timepoints. Regarding the two knowledge items of interest, before the intervention, 35/56 (63%) answered both correctly, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the medical consultation (P = .04 by chi‐square test).

Conclusions

The intervention was associated with increased patient knowledge. Data from this pilot have guided the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer being treated in community settings.

What Is the Effectiveness of Patient Decision Aids for Cancer-Related Decisions? A Systematic Review Subanalysis

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids when used with patients who face cancer-related decisions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened the 105 trials in the original 2017 Cochrane review to identify eligible trials of patient decision aids across the cancer continuum. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice and decision-making process. Secondary outcomes were patient behavior and health system effects. A meta-analysis was conducted for similar outcome measures.

RESULTS

Forty-six trials evaluated patient decision aids for cancer care, including 27 on screening decisions (59%), 12 on treatments (26%), four on genetic testing (9%), and three on prevention (6%). Common decisions were aboutprostate cancer screening (30%), colorectal cancer screening (22%), breast cancer treatment (13%), and prostate cancer treatment (9%). Compared with the control groups (usual care or alternative interventions), the patient decision aid group improved the match between the chosen option and the features that mattered most to the patient as demonstrated by improved knowledge (weighted mean difference, 12.88 of 100; 95% CI, 9.87 to 15.89; 24 trials), accurate risk perception (risk ratio [RR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.56; six trials), and value-choice agreement (RR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.57 to 4.84; nine trials). Compared with controls, the patient decision aid group improved the decision-making process with decreased decisional conflict (weighted mean difference, -9.56 of 100; 95% CI, -13.90 to -5.23; 12 trials), reduced clinician-controlled decision making (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79; eight trials), and fewer patients being indecisive (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.78; nine trials).

CONCLUSION

Patient decision aids improve the attributes of the choice made and decision-making process for patients who face cancer-related decisions.

Do Women who Receive a Negative BRCA1/2 Risk Result Understand the Implications for Breast Cancer Risk?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

National guidelines endorse using evidence-based tools to identify those at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). This study aimed to evaluate whether women deemed not to be at increased risk of being a BRCA mutation carrier; the majority of those screened, recall, understand and accept the implications of these results for breast cancer risk.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey with women (n = 148) who screened negative on a brief HBOC screener.

RESULTS

While women tended to accept HBOC screener as accurate (range 9-45; mean 32, SD 5.0), less than half (43%) accurately recalled their result. Only 52% understood that they were at low risk of carrying a mutation, and just 34% correctly understood their breast cancer risk. African American women were less likely to recall (33 vs. 53% respectively, OR 0.5, p = 0.03), understand (42 vs. 63% respectively, OR 0.4, p = 0.02), and accept (mean 31 vs. 33 respectively, β -2.1, p = 0.02) the result compared to Whites.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that those at low risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation had limited understanding of the distinction between mutation risk and breast cancer risk. Theory-based communication strategies are needed to increase the understanding of the implications of being at low risk for hereditary cancers.

Development and testing of the KnowGene scale to assess general cancer genetic knowledge related to multigene panel testing

PURPOSE

To develop and evaluate a measure of cancer genetics knowledge relevant to multigene panel testing.

METHODS

The instrument was developed using systematic input from a national panel of genetics experts, acceptability evaluation by patient advocates, and cognitive testing. Twenty-four candidate items were completed by 591 breast or gynecological patients who had undergone genetic counseling and multigene panel testing in the past 18 months. A unidimensional item response theory model was fit with a mix of 2-parameter logistic nested response (2 plnrm) and 2-parameter logistic (2 pl) items.

RESULTS

Key domains addressing cancer genetics knowledge were found to be overlapping. Of the 24 candidate items, 8 items were removed due to poor discrimination or local dependence. The remaining 16 items had good fit (RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.946) and discrimination parameters ranging from 0.49 to 1.60. The items specified as 2 plnrm distinguish between those answering incorrect versus don't know, with discrimination ranging from 0.51 to 1.02. Information curves were highest among those with lower knowledge.

CONCLUSION

KnowGene is a rigorously developed and effective measure of knowledge after cancer genetic counseling and multigene panel testing.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Measuring knowledge in a systematic way will inform practice and research initiatives in cancer genetics.

Willingness to decrease mammogram frequency among women at low risk for hereditary breast cancer

This study aimed to assess women's willingness to alter mammogram frequency based on their low risk for HBOC, and to examine if cognitive and emotional factors are associated with women's inclination to decrease mammogram frequency. We conducted an online survey with women (N = 124) who were unlikely to have a BRCA mutation and at average population risk for breast cancer based on family history. Most women were either white (50%) or African American (38%) and were 50 years or older (74%). One-third of women (32%) were willing to decrease mammogram frequency (as consistent with the USPSTF guideline), 42% reported being unwilling and 26% were unsure. Multivariate logistic regression showed that feeling worried about breast cancer (Adjust OR = 0.33, p = 0.01), greater genetic risk knowledge (Adjust OR = 0.74, p = 0.047), and more frequent past mammogram screening (Adjust OR = 0.13, p = 0.001) were associated with being less willing to decrease screening frequency. Findings suggest that emerging genomics-informed medical guidelines may not be accepted by many patients when the recommendations go against what is considered standard practice. Further study of the interplay between emotion- and cognition-based processing of the HBOC screen result will be important for strategizing communication interventions aimed at realizing the potential of precision public health.

A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids

Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concepts related to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, negative features often ambiguously defined, in cancer screening PDAs. Methods. Our process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed 1) current systematic reviews of decision aids, 2) the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Decision Aid Library Inventory, and 3) a web-based, gray literature search. Two independent reviewers identified and evaluated PDAs using content analysis. Reviewers coded whether overdiagnosis/overtreatment was described as 1) detecting cancer that would not lead to death, 2) detecting cancer that would not cause symptoms, and/or 3) a potential harm or consequence of screening. Coding discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Results. A total of 904 records (e.g., articles, PDAs) were reviewed and 85 PDAs were identified: prostate (n = 36), breast (n = 26), lung (n = 10), colorectal (n = 10), and other (n = 3). Sixty-seven PDAs included concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment; 57 (67.1%) used a term other than overdiagnosis/overtreatment, 23 (27.1%) used the specific term "overdiagnosis," and 13 (15.3%) used "overtreatment." PDAs described overdiagnosis/overtreatment as a potential harm or consequence of screening (n = 62) and/or a detection of a cancer that would not cause symptoms (n = 49). Thirty-six described overdiagnosis as the detection of a cancer that would not result in death. Twenty PDAs described the probabilities associated with overdiagnosis/overtreatment. Conclusions. Over three quarters of cancer screening PDAs addressed concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment, yet terminology was inconsistent and few included probability estimates. Consistent terminology and minimum standards to describe overdiagnosis/overtreatment would help guide the design and certification of cancer screening PDAs.

What does risk of future cancer mean to breast cancer patients?

PURPOSE

Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients greatly overestimate their risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Better understanding of patient conceptions of risk would facilitate doctor-patient communication and surgical decision making. In this mixed methods study, we prospectively examined breast cancer patients' perceived risk of future cancer and the reported factors that drove their risk perceptions.

METHODS

Women age 21-60 diagnosed with breast cancer without a BRCA mutation or known distant metastases completed a study interview between surgical consult and surgical treatment. Participants completed a 12-item Perceived Risk Questionnaire, which assessed 10-year and lifetime risks of ipsilateral local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence. Patients provided qualitative explanations for their answers.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients completed study interviews (mean age 50.3). Participants were primarily White (85.7%) and 90.5% had attended college. Patients estimated their 10-year risk of CBC as 22.0%, nearly 4 times the established 10-year risk. Women attributed their risk perceptions to "gut feelings" about future cancer, even when women knew those feelings contradicted medically established risk. Perceptions of risk also reflected beliefs that cancer is random and that risk for local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence are the same.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings point to the need for novel ways of presenting factual information regarding both risk of recurrence and of new primary cancers, as well as the necessity of acknowledging cognitive and affective processes many patients use when conceptualizing risk. By differentiating women's intuitive feelings about risk from their knowledge of medically estimated risk, doctors can enhance informed decision making.

Attitude towards and factors affecting uptake of population-based BRCA testing in the Ashkenazi Jewish population: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors affecting unselected population-based BRCA testing in Ashkenazi Jews (AJ).

DESIGN

Cohort-study set within recruitment to the GCaPPS trial (ISRCTN73338115).

SETTING

North London AJ population.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

Ashkenazi Jews women/men >18 years, recruited through self-referral.

METHODS

Ashkenazi Jews women/men underwent pre-test counselling for BRCA testing through recruitment clinics (clusters). Consenting individuals provided blood samples for BRCA testing. Data were collected on socio-demographic/family history/knowledge/psychological well-being along with benefits/risks/cultural influences (18-item questionnaire measuring 'attitude'). Four-item Likert-scales analysed initial 'interest' and 'intention-to-test' pre-counselling. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models evaluated factors affecting uptake/interest/intention to undergo BRCA testing. Statistical inference was based on cluster robust standard errors and joint Wald tests for significance. Item-Response Theory and graded-response models modelled responses to 18-item questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Interest, intention, uptake, attitude towards BRCA testing.

RESULTS

A total of 935 individuals (women = 67%/men = 33%; mean age = 53.8 (SD = 15.02) years) underwent pre-test genetic-counselling. During the pre-counselling, 96% expressed interest in and 60% indicated a clear intention to undergo BRCA testing. Subsequently, 88% opted for BRCA testing. BRCA-related knowledge (P = 0.013) and degree-level education (P = 0.01) were positively and negatively (respectively) associated with intention-to-test. Being married/cohabiting had four-fold higher odds for BRCA testing uptake (P = 0.009). Perceived benefits were associated with higher pre-counselling odds for interest in and intention to undergo BRCA testing. Reduced uncertainty/reassurance were the most important factors contributing to decision-making. Increased importance/concern towards risks/limitations (confidentiality/insurance/emotional impact/inability to prevent cancer/marriage ability/ethnic focus/stigmatisation) were significantly associated with lower odds of uptake of BRCA testing, and discriminated between acceptors and decliners. Male gender/degree-level education (P = 0.001) had weaker correlations, whereas having children showed stronger (P = 0.005) associations with attitudes towards BRCA testing.

CONCLUSIONS

BRCA testing in the AJ population has high acceptability. Pre-test counselling increases awareness of disadvantages/limitations of BRCA testing, influencing final cost-benefit perception and decision-making on undergoing testing.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

BRCA testing in Ashkenazi Jews has high acceptability and uptake. Pre-test counselling facilitates informed decision-making.

A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment

With continuous advances in medicine, patients are faced with several medical or surgical treatment options for their health conditions. Decision aids may be useful in helping patients navigate these options and choose based on their goals and values. We reviewed the literature to identify decision aids and better understand the effect on patient decision-making. We identified 107 decision aids designed to help patients make decisions between medical treatment or screening options; 39 decision aids were used to help patients choose between a medical and surgical treatment, and five were identified that aided patients in deciding between a major open surgical procedure and a less invasive option. Many of the decision aids were used to help patients decide between prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer screening or treatment options. Although most decision aids were not associated with a significant effect on the actual decision made, they were largely associated with increased patient knowledge, decreased decisional conflict, more accurate perception of risks, increased satisfaction with their decision, and no increase in anxiety surrounding their decision. These data identify a gap in use of decision aids in surgical decision-making and highlight the potential to help surgical patients make value-based, knowledgeable decisions regarding their treatment.

The iPrevent Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk Management Tool: Usability and Acceptability Testing

BACKGROUND

iPrevent estimates breast cancer (BC) risk and provides tailored risk management information.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of the iPrevent prototype.

METHODS

Clinicians were eligible for participation in the study if they worked in primary care, breast surgery, or genetics clinics. Female patients aged 18-70 years with no personal cancer history were eligible. Clinicians were first familiarized with iPrevent using hypothetical paper-based cases and then actor scenarios; subsequently, they used iPrevent with their patients. Clinicians and patients completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and an Acceptability questionnaire 2 weeks after using iPrevent; patients also completed measures of BC worry, anxiety, risk perception, and knowledge pre- and 2 weeks post-iPrevent. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The SUS and Acceptability questionnaires were completed by 19 of 20 clinicians and 37 of 43 patients. Usability was above average (SUS score >68) for 68% (13/19) clinicians and 76% (28/37) patients. The amount of information provided by iPrevent was reported as "about right" by 89% (17/19) clinicians and 89% (33/37) patients and 95% (18/19) and 97% (36/37), respectively, would recommend iPrevent to others, although 53% (10/19) clinicians and 27% (10/37) patients found it too long. Exploratory analyses suggested that iPrevent could improve risk perception, decrease frequency of BC worry, and enhance BC prevention knowledge without changing state anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

The iPrevent prototype demonstrated good usability and acceptability. Because concerns about length could be an implementation barrier, data entry has been abbreviated in the publicly available version of iPrevent.

Improving comprehension of genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer clients with a visual tool

Objective

Genetic counseling and testing can be offered to individuals who are at high risk of carrying a breast cancer (BRCA) gene mutation. However, the content of genetic counseling could be difficult to understand due to complex medical information. The aim of this study was to investigate if comprehension can be improved with a new genetic counseling tool (NGCT hereafter; a tool that combines complex medical information with pictures, diagrams and tables) as compared to conventional oral-only genetic counseling (CGC).

Methods

207 clients attended genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer at the Medical University of Vienna between February 2015 and February 2016. Seventy clients participated in this study and were allocated into two groups: the first 36 participants received conventional (oral only) genetic counseling (CGC) and the following 34 participants received genetic counseling using a new genetic counseling tool (NGCT), which combines complex information with pictures, diagrams and tables. After genetic counseling, all consenting participants were invited to complete a questionnaire with seven questions evaluating their comprehension of the medical information provided.

Results

Socio-demographic backgrounds were comparable in both groups. Correct responses were significantly higher in the NGCT group compared to the CGC group (p = 0.012). NGCT also statistically improves correct response of Q1 (p = 0.03) and Q7 (p = 0.004).

Conclusion

The NGCT leads to an overall better understanding of the content of a genetic counseling session than CGC alone.

Recontacting Patients with Updated Genetic Testing Recommendations for Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma and Pheochromocytoma or Paraganglioma

BACKGROUND

No guidelines exist regarding physicians' duty to inform former patients about novel genetic tests that may be medically beneficial. Research on the feasibility and efficacy of disseminating information and patient opinions on this topic is limited.

METHODS

Adult patients treated at our institution from 1950 to 2010 for medullary thyroid cancer, pheochromocytoma, or paraganglioma were included if their history suggested being at-risk for a hereditary syndrome but genetic risk assessment would be incomplete by current standards. A questionnaire assessing behaviors and attitudes was mailed 6 weeks after an information letter describing new genetic tests, benefits, and risks was mailed.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven of 312 (31.1%) eligible patients with an identified mailing address returned the questionnaire. After receiving the letter, 29.2% patients discussed genetic testing with their doctor, 39.3% considered pursuing genetic testing, and 8.5% underwent testing. Nearly all respondents (97%) indicated that physicians should inform patients about new developments that may improve their or their family's health, and 71% thought patients shared this responsibility. Most patients understood the letter (84%) and were pleased it was sent (84%), although 11% found it upsetting.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients believe it is important for physicians to inform them of potentially beneficial developments in genetic testing. However, physician-initiated letters to introduce new information appear inadequate alone in motivating patients to seek additional genetic counseling and testing. Further research is needed regarding optimal methods to notify former patients about new genetic tests and corresponding clinical and ethical implications.

Breast Cancer Genetics Knowledge and Testing Intentions among Nigerian Professional Women

Genetic testing services for breast cancer are well established in developed countries compared to African populations that bear a disproportionate burden of breast cancer (BC). The objective of this study is to examine the knowledge of professional Nigerian women about BC genetics and their intentions to utilize genetic testing services when it is made available in Nigeria. In this study, 165 lecturers and 189 bankers were recruited and studied using a validated self-administered questionnaire. The respondents' mean age was 34.9 years (SD = 10.9), 6.5% had family history of BC, and 84.7% had limited knowledge of breast cancer genetics. The proportion of women with genetic testing intentions for breast cancer was 87.3%. Health care access (OR = 2.35, 95% CI, 1.07-5.13), religion (OR = 3.51, 95% CI, 1.03-11.92), and perceived personal risk if a close relative had breast cancer (OR = 2.31, 95% CI, 1.05-5.08) independently predicted testing intentions. The genetic testing intentions for BC were high despite limited knowledge about breast cancer genetics. Promotion of BC genetics education as well as efforts to make BC genetic testing services available in Nigeria at reduced cost remains essential.

Examination of the Patient-Focused Impact of Cancer Telegenetics Among a Rural Population: Comparison with Traditional In-Person Services

BACKGROUND

Telecommunication models promise to improve access to cancer genetic counseling. Little is known about their impact among the geographically underserved. This work examined knowledge and emotional outcomes and attitudes/beliefs regarding cancer telegenetic services (via live-interactive videoconferencing) in Maine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cancer telegenetic patients seen at two remote sites and control (in-person) patients responded to pre-/postsurveys assessing care impact on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) knowledge and emotional health, ease of access to services, and telegenetics satisfaction/acceptability.

RESULTS

158/174 (90%) participants returned pre- and immediate postcounseling surveys (90 remote and 68 in-person). Fewer returned 1-month postsurveys. Remote patients were older with lower education levels, more likely to live in rural counties and to have cancer histories. The two groups were matched relative to gender, race, and health insurance status. HBOC knowledge improved equally in both groups pre- versus immediately postcounseling and was maintained at 1 month in both groups. Decreased anxiety was evident postcounseling with no significant difference between groups. Depression improved significantly in remote patients immediately postcounseling; 1-month depression measures were lower in both groups. The availability of telegenetics eased transportation needs/work absences, and patients reported satisfaction with telecommunication quality. Despite overall acceptance of telegenetics, 32% of remote patients noted preference for in-person care.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few differences in HBOC knowledge and emotional outcomes comparing traditional in-person cancer genetic services with telegenetics, and satisfaction with/acceptance of this model was high. These data relate to scalability of cancer telegenetics in rural regions regionally and nationally.

Effects of a web-based intervention on women's breast health behaviors

Helping women make choices to reduce cancer risk and to improve breast health behaviors is important, but the best ways to reach more people with intervention assistance is not known. To test the efficacy of a web-based intervention designed to help women make better breast health choices, we adapted our previously tested, successful breast health intervention package to be delivered on the Internet, and then we tested it in a randomized trial. We recruited women from the general public to be randomized to either an active intervention group or a delayed intervention control group. The intervention consisted of a specialized website providing tailored and personalized risk information to all participants, followed by offers of additional support if needed. Follow-up at one-year post randomization revealed significant improvements in mammography screening in intervention women compared with control women (improvement of 13 percentage points). The intervention effects were more powerful in women who increased breast health knowledge and decreased cancer worry during intervention. These data indicate that increases in mammography can be accomplished in population-based mostly insured samples by implementing this simple, low resource intensive intervention.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Outcomes of Genetic Counseling

With the advancements in precision medicine and health care reform, it is critical that genetic counseling practice respond to emerging evidence to maximize client benefit. The objective of this review was to synthesize evidence on outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of genetic counseling to inform clinical practice. Seven databases were searched in conducting this review. Studies were selected for inclusion if they were: (a) RCTs published from 1990 to 2015, and (b) assessed a direct outcome of genetic counseling. Extracted data included study population, aims, and outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines. A review of 1654 abstracts identified 58 publications of 54 unique RCTs that met inclusion criteria, the vast majority of which were conducted in cancer genetic counseling setting. Twenty-seven publications assessed 'enhancements' to genetic counseling, and 31 publications compared delivery modes. The methodological rigor varied considerably, highlighting the need for attention to quality criteria in RCT design. While most studies assessed several client outcomes hypothesized to be affected by genetic counseling (e.g., psychological wellbeing, knowledge, perceived risk, patient satisfaction), disparate validated and reliable scales and other assessments were often used to evaluate the same outcome(s). This limits opportunity to compare findings across studies. While RCTs of genetic counseling demonstrate enhanced client outcomes in a number of studies and pave the way to evidence-based practice, the heterogeneity of the research questions suggest an important need for more complementary studies with consistent outcome assessments.

Effect on perceived control and psychological distress of genetic knowledge in women with breast cancer receiving a BRCA1/2 test result

Information provision during BRCA1/2 genetic counseling is complex and expected to be increasingly so with gene panel testing. This prospective study evaluated whether genetic knowledge in counselees with breast cancer (BC) after a pre-test genetic counseling visit (T1) enhance their feeling of personal control while minimizing distress after the notification of BRCA1/2 result (T2). At T1, 243 (89% response rate) counselees completed questionnaires on genetic knowledge (BGKQ), perceived cancer genetic risk; of which, at T2, 180 (66%) completed the BGKQ again, scales of anxiety/depression, distress specific to genetic risk, and perceived control. Multilevel models were performed accounting for clinician, and testing an effect of knowledge on psychological outcomes according to the adequacy of counselees' perceived genetic predisposition to cancer. The mean knowledge score was moderate at T1, decreased while not significantly differing by BRCA1/2 test result at T2. Knowledge at T1 had no direct effect on psychological outcomes, but in counselees who over-estimated their cancer genetic risk, higher knowledge at T1 predicted higher specific distress at T2. In BC affected counselees who over-estimate their cancer genetic risk, higher BRCA1/2 pre-test genetic knowledge seem to lead to increased specific distress. Identifying these BC affected counselees who over-estimate their genetic cancer risk and helping them to interpret their genetic knowledge instead of providing them with exhaustive genetic information could minimize their distress after test result receipt.

Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered a key component of high quality cancer care and may be supported by patient decision aids (PtDAs). Many patients, however, face multiple social disadvantages that may influence their ability to fully participate in SDM or to use PtDAs; additionally, these social disadvantages are among the determinants of health associated with greater cancer risk, unwarranted variations in care and worse outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review is to describe the extent to which disadvantaged social groups in the United States (US) have been included in trials of cancer-related PtDAs and to highlight strategies, lessons learned and future opportunities for developing and evaluating PtDAs that are appropriate for disadvantaged populations.

METHODS

We selected cancer-related US studies from the Cochrane 2014 review of PtDAs and added RCTs meeting Cochrane criteria from searches of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO (January 2010 to December 2013); and reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts; three reviewers independently screened full text articles, performed data extraction and assessed: 1) inclusion of participants based on seven indicators of social disadvantage (limited education; female gender; uninsured or Medicaid status; non-U.S. nativity; non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity; limited English proficiency; low-literacy), and 2) attention to social disadvantage in the development or evaluation of PtDAs.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of 39 eligible RCTs included participants from at least one disadvantaged subgroup, most frequently racial/ethnic minorities or individuals with limited education and/or low-literacy. Seventeen studies discussed strategies and lessons learned in attending to the needs of disadvantaged social groups in PtDA development; 14 studies targeted disadvantaged groups or addressed subgroup differences in PtDA evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The diversity of the US population is represented in a majority of cancer-related PtDA RCTs, but fewer studies have tailored PtDAs to address the multiple social disadvantages that may impact patients' participation in SDM. More detailed attention to the comprehensive range of social factors that determine cancer risk, variations in care and outcomes is needed in the development and evaluation of PtDAs for disadvantaged populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered 24 October 2014 in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews ( CRD42014014470 ).

Effects of Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Diverse values clarification methods exist. It is important to understand which, if any, of their design features help people clarify values relevant to a health decision. Purpose. To explore the effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods on outcomes including decisional conflict, values congruence, and decisional regret. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described the evaluation of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted details about the evaluation, whether it was conducted in the context of actual or hypothetical decisions, and the results of the evaluation. We combined these data with data from a previous review about each values clarification method’s design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 20 evaluations of values clarification methods within 19 articles. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous. Few studies reported values congruence or postdecision outcomes. The most promising design feature identified was explicitly showing people the implications of their values, for example, by displaying the extent to which each of their decision options aligns with what matters to them. Limitations. Because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions. Few values clarification methods have been evaluated experimentally. More research is needed to determine effects of different design features of values clarification methods and to establish best practices in values clarification. When feasible, evaluations should assess values congruence and postdecision measures of longer-term outcomes.

Choosing treatment and screening options congruent with values: Do decision aids help? Sub-analysis of a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To understand how well patients make value congruent decisions with and without patient decision aids (PtDAs) for screening and treatment options, and identify issues with its measurement and evaluation.

METHODS

A sub-analysis of trials included in the 2014 Cochrane Review of Decision Aids. Eligible trials measured value congruence with chosen option. Two reviewers independently screened 115 trials.

RESULTS

Among 18 included trials, 8 (44%) measured value congruence using the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), 7 (39%) used heterogeneous methods, and 3 (17%) used unclear methods. Pooled results of trials that used heterogeneous measures were statistically non-significant (n=3). Results from trials that used the MMIC suggest patients are 48% more likely to make value congruent decisions when exposed to a PtDA for a screening decision (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.16, n=8).

CONCLUSION

Patients struggle to make value congruent decisions, but PtDAs may help. While the absolute improvement is relatively small it may be underestimated due to sample size issues, definitions, and heterogeneity of measures.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Current approaches are inadequate to support patients making decisions that are consistent with their values. There is some evidence that PtDAs support patients with achieving values congruent decisions for screening choices.

Improving Decision Making about Genetic Testing in the Clinic: An Overview of Effective Knowledge Translation Interventions

Background

Knowledge translation (KT) interventions are attempts to change behavior in keeping with scientific evidence. While genetic tests are increasingly available to healthcare consumers in the clinic, evidence about their benefits is unclear and decisions about genetic testing are thus difficult for all parties.

Objective

We sought to identify KT interventions that involved decisions about genetic testing in the clinical context and to assess their effectiveness for improving decision making in terms of behavior change, increased knowledge and wellbeing.

Methods

We searched for trials assessing KT interventions in the context of genetic testing up to March 2014 in all systematic reviews (n = 153) published by two Cochrane review groups: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and Consumers and Communication.

Results

We retrieved 2473 unique trials of which we retained only 28 (1%). Two EPOC reviews yielded two trials of KT interventions: audit and feedback (n = 1) and educational outreach (n = 1). Both targeted health professionals and the KT intervention they assessed was found to be effective. Four Consumers and Communication reviews yielded 26 trials: decision aids (n = 15), communication of DNA-based disease risk estimates (n = 7), personalized risk communication (n = 3) and mobile phone messaging (n = 1). Among these, 25 trials targeted only health consumers or patients and the KT interventions were found to be effective in four trials, partly effective in seven, and ineffective in four. Lastly, only one trial targeted both physicians and patients and was found to be effective.

Conclusions

More research on the effectiveness of KT interventions regarding genetic testing in the clinical context may contribute to patients making informed value-based decisions and drawing the maximum benefit from clinical applications of genetic and genomic innovations.

A pilot randomized clinical trial evaluating the impact of genetic counseling for serious mental illnesses

OBJECTIVE

The serious mental illnesses schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder are complex conditions affecting 1% to 4% of the population. Individuals with serious mental illnesses express interest in genetic counseling, an intervention showing promise for increasing patient knowledge and adaptation. This trial aimed to evaluate the effects of genetic counseling for people with serious mental illnesses as compared to an educational intervention or wait list.

METHOD

A pilot 3-arm (each n = 40; genetic counseling, a control intervention involving an educational booklet, or wait list), parallel-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 2008 through November 2011 in Vancouver, Canada. Participants with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or schizoaffective disorder (DSM-IV) completed outcome measures assessing knowledge, risk perception, internalized stigma, and perceived control over illness at baseline and 1-month follow-up. The Brief Symptom Inventory was administered to control for current symptoms. Analyses included linear mixed-effects models and χ(2) tests.

RESULTS

Knowledge increased for genetic counseling/educational booklet compared to wait list at follow-up (LRT1 = 19.33, Holm-adjusted P = .0003, R(2)LMM(m) = 0.17). Risk perception accuracy increased at follow-up for genetic counseling compared to wait list (Yates continuity corrected χ(2)1 = 9.1, Bonferroni P = .003) and educational booklet (Yates continuity corrected χ(2)1 = 8.2, Bonferroni P = .004). There were no significant differences between groups for stigma or perceived control scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic counseling and the educational booklet improved knowledge, and genetic counseling, but not the educational booklet, improved risk perception accuracy for this population. The impact of genetic counseling on internalized stigma and perceived control is worth further investigation. Genetic counseling should be considered for patients with serious mental illnesses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00713804.

Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Values clarification is a recommended element of patient decision aids. Many different values clarification methods exist, but there is little evidence synthesis available to guide design decisions. Purpose. To describe practices in the field of explicit values clarification methods according to a taxonomy of design features. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted data about decisions addressed; use of theories, frameworks, and guidelines; and 12 design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 110 articles describing 98 explicit values clarification methods. Most of these addressed decisions in cancer or reproductive health, and half addressed a decision between just 2 options. Most used neither theory nor guidelines to structure their design. “Pros and cons” was the most common type of values clarification method. Most methods did not allow users to add their own concerns. Few methods explicitly presented tradeoffs inherent in the decision, supported an iterative process of values exploration, or showed how different options aligned with users’ values. Limitations. Study selection criteria and choice of elements for the taxonomy may have excluded values clarification methods or design features. Conclusions. Explicit values clarification methods have diverse designs but can be systematically cataloged within the structure of a taxonomy. Developers of values clarification methods should carefully consider each of the design features in this taxonomy and publish adequate descriptions of their designs. More research is needed to study the effects of different design features.

Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to measure changes to genetics knowledge and self-efficacy following personal genomic testing (PGT).

METHODS

New customers of 23andMe and Pathway Genomics completed a series of online surveys. We measured genetics knowledge (nine true/false items) and genetics self-efficacy (five Likert-scale items) before receipt of results and 6 months after results and used paired methods to evaluate change over time. Correlates of change (e.g., decision regret) were identified using linear regression.

RESULTS

998 PGT customers (59.9% female; 85.8% White; mean age 46.9 ± 15.5 years) were included in our analyses. Mean genetics knowledge score was 8.15 ± 0.95 (out of 9) at baseline and 8.25 ± 0.92 at 6 months (P = 0.0024). Mean self-efficacy score was 29.06 ± 5.59 (out of 35) at baseline and 27.7 ± 5.46 at 6 months (P < 0.0001); on each item, 30-45% of participants reported lower self-efficacy following PGT. Change in self-efficacy was positively associated with health-care provider consultation (P = 0.0042), impact of PGT on perceived control over one's health (P < 0.0001), and perceived value of PGT (P < 0.0001) and was negatively associated with decision regret (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Lowered genetics self-efficacy following PGT may reflect an appropriate reevaluation by consumers in response to receiving complex genetic information.Genet Med 18 1, 65-72.

Relationships Between Health Literacy and Genomics-Related Knowledge, Self-Efficacy, Perceived Importance, and Communication in a Medically Underserved Population

The increasing importance of genomic information in clinical care heightens the need to examine how individuals understand, value, and communicate about this information. Based on a conceptual framework of genomics-related health literacy, we examined whether health literacy was related to knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived importance of genetics and family health history (FHH) and communication about FHH in a medically underserved population. The analytic sample was composed of 624 patients at a primary care clinic in a large urban hospital. About half of the participants (47%) had limited health literacy; 55% had no education beyond high school, and 58% were Black. In multivariable models, limited health literacy was associated with lower genetic knowledge (β = -0.55, SE = 0.10, p < .0001), lower awareness of FHH (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.28, 0.90], p = .020), and greater perceived importance of genetic information (OR = 1.95, 95% CI [1.27, 3.00], p = .0022) but lower perceived importance of FHH information (OR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.26, 0.86], p = .013) and more frequent communication with a doctor about FHH (OR = 2.02, 95% CI [1.27, 3.23], p = .0032). The findings highlight the importance of considering domains of genomics-related health literacy (e.g., knowledge, oral literacy) in developing educational strategies for genomic information. Health literacy research is essential to avoid increasing disparities in information and health outcomes as genomic information reaches more patients.

Impact of a primary care based intervention on breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern: A randomized, controlled trial

PURPOSE

To estimate the effects of a tablet-based, breast cancer risk education intervention for use in primary care settings (BreastCARE) on patients' breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern.

METHODS

From June 2011-August 2012, we enrolled women from two clinics, aged 40-74 years with no personal breast cancer history, and randomized them to the BreastCARE intervention group or to the control group. All patients completed a baseline telephone survey and risk assessment (via telephone for controls, via tablet computer in clinic waiting room prior to visit for intervention). All women were categorized as high or average risk based on the Referral Screening Tool, the Gail model or the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model. Intervention patients and their physicians received an individualized risk report to discuss during the visit. All women completed a follow-up telephone survey 1-2 weeks after risk assessment. Post-test comparisons estimated differences at follow-up in breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern.

RESULTS

580 intervention and 655 control women completed follow-up interviews. Mean age was 56 years (SD = 9). At follow-up, 73% of controls and 71% of intervention women correctly perceived their breast cancer risk and 22% of controls and 24% of intervention women were very concerned about breast cancer. Intervention patients had greater knowledge (≥75% correct answers) of breast cancer risk factors at follow-up (24% vs. 16%; p = 0.002). In multivariable analysis, there were no differences in correct risk perception or concern, but intervention patients had greater knowledge ([OR] = 1.62; 95% [CI] = 1.19-2.23).

CONCLUSIONS

A simple, practical intervention involving physicians at the point of care can improve knowledge of breast cancer without increasing concern.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01830933.

Breast Cancer Survivors' Knowledge of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer following Genetic Counseling: An Exploration of General and Survivor-Specific Knowledge Items

BACKGROUND

Previous studies found genetic counseling increased participants' knowledge about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). However, most explored knowledge gain in unaffected women and the scale most commonly used does not include items that may be more pertinent to breast cancer (BC) survivors.

AIMS

To explore whether genetic counseling impacts BC survivors' knowledge about HBOC and BC survivor-specific information.

METHODS

The National Center for Human Genome Research Knowledge Scale and 5 additional items specific to BC survivors were tested among BC survivors; before genetic counseling (time 1), 2-3 weeks after genetic counseling (time 2), and 6 months following genetic counseling (time 3).

RESULTS

A statistically significant change in knowledge over time was found. Post hoc analyses revealed statistically significant increases in knowledge between time 1 (median = 7.00) and time 2 (median = 10.00; p < 0.005), and between time 1 and time 3 (median = 9.00; p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge increased following genetic counseling, but the highest total average score at any time was <70% out of 100%. Additional analyses revealed items with low rates of correct response at all three time points, raising several concerns and the consideration of alternative approaches to measuring knowledge.

Attitudes Toward Genetic Testing for Celiac Disease

HLA molecular typing for celiac disease (CD) is a genetic test with a high negative predictive value. The aim of this study is to explore knowledge of and attitudes towards genetic testing (GT). A 25-item questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team and distributed to members of CD support groups across the United States. Respondents (n = 1835) were mainly female (88 %), married (76 %), and college-educated (55 %), with a median age range of 31-50 years. Those who were married (82 vs 75 %, p = 0.002), had children (82 vs 74 %, p < 0.001), and had pursued education beyond high school (81 vs 68 %, p = 0.004) were more likely to be aware of the availability of GT. On multivariable analysis, adjusting for age, sex, education, marital status, region of residence, and having children, college-education (OR 2.05, 95 % CI: 1.33-3.16) and having children (OR 1.56, 95 % CI: 1.15-2.11) remained significant predictors of GT awareness. A majority of patients with a personal or family history of CD planned GT for their children, and the most common concerns regarding GT were cost and impact on health care and/or insurance. In conclusion, awareness of GT is high among CD support group members. Efforts should be made to increase knowledge of GT in those with a lower educational level, and healthcare professionals should attempt to address concerns regarding GT cost and the impact of results on health care and insurance status.

Subjective and Objective Risks of Carrying a BRCA1/2 Mutation in Individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish Descent

This repeated measures study examines (1) the change in subjective risk of mutations pre- to postcounseling, (2) the accuracy of BRCAPRO estimates of mutations, and (3) the discrepancy between subjective risk and BRCAPRO estimates of mutations before and after genetic counseling. Ninety-nine Ashkenazi Jewish individuals pursued testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Most had a personal cancer history (N = 51; family only: N = 48); and received uninformative negative results (N = 66; positives: N = 23; informative negative: N = 10). The coping strategy of defensive pessimism predicts that individuals will believe the worst case scenario to better cope with a potential negative outcome. Consistent with this, most felt they would have a mutation, if not mutations in both genes. The BRCAPRO model appeared to overestimate risk of having a mutation in this sample (p < .001). BRCAPRO overestimates notwithstanding, genetic counseling increased accuracy of subjective risk (p < .01). Individuals with a family-only cancer history had the least accurate estimates of risk (p < .05) and may need further intervention to either manage anxiety or improve knowledge.