1
|
Madeo AC, Kohlmann W, Liao Y, Zhong L, Rothwell E, Kaphingst KA. Women's preferences for genetic screening in routine care: A qualitative study. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2024; 130:108439. [PMID: 39303503 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108439] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2024] [Revised: 08/06/2024] [Accepted: 09/11/2024] [Indexed: 09/22/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Examine decision-making regarding when women would prefer to receive reproductive carrier and cancer predisposition screening and from what clinician. METHODS 20 women completed in-depth interviews via Zoom exploring their views on the provision of reproductive carrier and cancer predisposition screening. Our analysis identified themes related to what informs women's preferences for when they would like to receive a genetic screening offer and by which clinician. RESULTS Participants' responses to questions about when they would be interested in receiving genetic screening were best understood through the lens of the Extended Parallel Process Model. Specifically, personal utility of the information, a woman's family health history and cost were key factors in decision-making. Women considered their clinician's knowledge and their trust in and relationship with the clinician when deciding from whom they would prefer to receive an offer of genetic screening. CONCLUSION OB/GYN clinic patients may accept an offer of genetic screening from a knowledgeable and trusted clinician for carrier and cancer predisposition screening preconceptionally or prenatally. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Integrating genetic reproductive and cancer predisposition screening into the care provided to reproductive age OB/GYN patients may be acceptable to this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne C Madeo
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
| | - Wendy Kohlmann
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Yi Liao
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Lingzi Zhong
- Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Erin Rothwell
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Kimberly A Kaphingst
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kreeftenberg LL, Henneman L, Ket JCF, Cornel MC, van El CG. Engagement of patients and the public in personalised prevention in Europe using genomic information: a scoping review. Front Public Health 2024; 12:1456853. [PMID: 39346592 PMCID: PMC11427883 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1456853] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2024] [Accepted: 09/02/2024] [Indexed: 10/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction Personalised prevention using genomic information requires active involvement from patients and the public, who should be well-informed and empowered to make healthcare decisions that reflect their personal values. We aimed to map engagement practises, and assess the extent and types of engagement methods used in the field of personalised prevention of common chronic conditions using genomic information. Methods A scoping review on selected literature (in Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, and IBSS) from 2015 to 2023 was performed. Articles included described practises of patient and public engagement in personalised prevention and genomics conducted in Europe focusing on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and neurodegenerative disorders. Engagement was explored based on grouping practises across the domains of care, research, education, and governance. Results A total of 23 articles describing 23 engagement practises were selected. Analysis revealed diverse engagement levels, the majority falling into the low to medium engagement category, and showing mainly unidirectional methods of engagement, especially consultation. Most engagement activities related to cancer, and none to neurodegenerative disorders. Most publications appeared in the care domain, followed by the research domain, a combination of research and care, and a combination of governance and education. Conclusion These results suggest that most practises to engage patients and public in personalised prevention using genomic information appear to have lower levels of engagement. Elaborating on and implementing practises that engage and empower patients and the public at all levels of the engagement spectrum and for all chronic diseases is needed, fostering a more inclusive and participatory approach to personalised prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Loes Lindiwe Kreeftenberg
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Lidewij Henneman
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Johannes C F Ket
- Medical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Martina C Cornel
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Carla G van El
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Salisbury A, Ciardi J, Norman R, Smit AK, Cust AE, Low C, Caruana M, Gordon L, Canfell K, Steinberg J, Pearce A. Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2024:10.1007/s40258-024-00893-1. [PMID: 38916649 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00893-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/15/2024] [Indexed: 06/26/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Genetic and genomic testing can provide valuable information on individuals' risk of chronic diseases, presenting an opportunity for risk-tailored disease screening to improve early detection and health outcomes. The acceptability, uptake and effectiveness of such programmes is dependent on public preferences for the programme features. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of discrete choice experiments assessing preferences for genetic/genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. METHODS PubMed, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for discrete choice experiment studies assessing preferences for genetic or genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. Eligible studies were double screened, extracted and synthesised through descriptive statistics and content analysis of themes. Bias was assessed using an existing quality checklist. RESULTS Twelve studies were included. Most studies focused on cancer screening (n = 10) and explored preferences for testing of rare, high-risk variants (n = 10), largely within a targeted population (e.g. subgroups with family history of disease). Two studies explored preferences for the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) at a population level. Twenty-six programme attributes were identified, with most significantly impacting preferences. Survival, test accuracy and screening impact were most frequently reported as most important. Depending on the clinical context and programme attributes and levels, estimated uptake of hypothetical programmes varied from no participation to almost full participation (97%). CONCLUSION The uptake of potential programmes would strongly depend on specific programme features and the disease context. In particular, careful communication of potential survival benefits and likely genetic/genomic test accuracy might encourage uptake of genetic and genomic risk-tailored disease screening programmes. As the majority of the literature focused on high-risk variants and cancer screening, further research is required to understand preferences specific to PRS testing at a population level and targeted genomic testing for different disease contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amber Salisbury
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Joshua Ciardi
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Cynthia Low
- Lived Experience Expert, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Michael Caruana
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Louisa Gordon
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Karen Canfell
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Julia Steinberg
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Alison Pearce
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dunlop KLA, Singh N, Robbins HA, Zahed H, Johansson M, Rankin NM, Cust AE. Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review. Prev Med 2024; 181:107897. [PMID: 38378124 PMCID: PMC11106520 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2023] [Revised: 02/10/2024] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes. METHODS Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework. RESULTS Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate L A Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Nehal Singh
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hilary A Robbins
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Hana Zahed
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Mattias Johansson
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Law CK, Cust AE, Smit AK, Trevena L, Fernandez-Penas P, Nieweg OE, Menzies AM, Wordsworth S, Morton RL. Long-term cost-effectiveness of a melanoma prevention program using genomic risk information compared with standard prevention advice in Australia. Genet Med 2023; 25:100970. [PMID: 37658729 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100970] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2023] [Revised: 08/24/2023] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 09/03/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Evidence indicates that a melanoma prevention program using personalized genomic risk provision and genetic counseling can affect prevention behaviors, including reducing sunburns in adults with no melanoma history. This analysis evaluated its longer-term cost-effectiveness from an Australian health system perspective. METHODS The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of genomic risk provision (intervention) compared with standard prevention advice. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed using randomized trial data to simulate lifetime cost-effectiveness. All costs were presented in 2018/19 Australian dollars (AUD). The intervention effect on reduced sunburns was stratified by sex and traditional risk, which was calculated through a validated prediction model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken for robustness checks. RESULTS The per participant cost of intervention was AUD$189. Genomic risk provision targeting high-traditional risk individuals produced an ICER of AUD$35,254 (per quality-adjusted life year gained); sensitivity analyses indicated the intervention would be cost-effective in more than 50% of scenarios. When the intervention was extended to low-traditional risk groups, the ICER was AUD$43,746 with a 45% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION Genomic risk provision targeted to high-traditional melanoma risk individuals is likely a cost-effective strategy for reducing sunburns and will likely prevent future melanomas and keratinocyte carcinomas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chi Kin Law
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Lyndal Trevena
- School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Omgo E Nieweg
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Alexander M Menzies
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, Australia
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Rachael L Morton
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Williams KB, Lasarev MR, Baker M, Seroogy CM. Cross-sectional survey on genetic testing utilization and perceptions in Wisconsin Amish and Mennonite communities. J Community Genet 2023; 14:41-49. [PMID: 36385695 PMCID: PMC9947211 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-022-00621-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 11/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Amish and Mennonite (Plain) communities have increased prevalence of many recessively inherited disorders due to founder variants that can be identified using next-generation sequencing (NGS). We assessed newborn screening (NBS) utilization, prior genetic testing, and perceptions of genetic testing among Wisconsin Plain communities to guide implementation and utilization of a population-specific NGS gene panel testing. A mailed paper survey (N = 959) of demographics, NBS utilization, prior genetic testing, and preferences for categorical genetic disorder and defined clinical context testing was developed. Overall response rate was 39% (N = 378; 183 Amish, 193 Mennonite; 2 not Amish/Mennonite). Mennonites were more likely to respond in favor of carrier screening for metabolic disorders and other surgical conditions and less likely to respond in favor of asymptomatic testing for neurologic disorders and lethal disorders compared to Amish. Reported utilization of NBS was positively associated with stated interest in genetic testing for an asymptomatic child. Reported prior genetic testing was positively associated with stated interest in carrier screening and negatively associated with testing a symptomatic child. Although Plain community members share many common outward characteristics, our survey responses suggest diversity in their views of genetic testing and support laboratory methods that can be flexible to varied needs of individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie B. Williams
- Center for Special Children, La Farge Medical Clinic - Vernon Memorial Healthcare, 206 North Mill Street, La Farge, WI 54639 USA ,Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA
| | - Michael R. Lasarev
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA
| | - Mei Baker
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA ,Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA ,Center for Human Genomics and Precision Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA
| | - Christine M. Seroogy
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Young MA, Yanes T, Cust AE, Dunlop K, Limb S, Newson AJ, Purvis R, Thiyagarajan L, Scott RJ, Verma K, James PA, Steinberg J. Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Use of Polygenic Scores in Clinical Practice and Population Health. Twin Res Hum Genet 2023; 26:40-48. [PMID: 36950972 DOI: 10.1017/thg.2023.10] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/24/2023]
Abstract
Considerable progress continues to be made with regards to the value and use of disease associated polygenic scores (PGS). PGS aim to capture a person's genetic liability to a condition, disease, or a trait, combining information across many risk variants and incorporating their effect sizes. They are already available for clinicians and consumers to order in Australasia. However, debate is ongoing over the readiness of this information for integration into clinical practice and population health. This position statement provides the viewpoint of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) regarding the clinical application of disease-associated PGS in both individual patients and population health. The statement details how PGS are calculated, highlights their breadth of possible application, and examines their current challenges and limitations. We consider fundamental lessons from Mendelian genetics and their continuing relevance to PGS, while also acknowledging the distinct elements of PGS. Use of PGS in practice should be evidence based, and the evidence for the associated benefit, while rapidly emerging, remains limited. Given that clinicians and consumers can already order PGS, their current limitations and key issues warrant consideration. PGS can be developed for most complex conditions and traits and can be used across multiple clinical settings and for population health. The HGSA's view is that further evaluation, including regulatory, implementation and health system evaluation are required before PGS can be routinely implemented in the Australasian healthcare system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary-Anne Young
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St Vincent's Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Tatiane Yanes
- Dermatology Research Centre, Frazer Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Kate Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sharne Limb
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospitals, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rebecca Purvis
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospitals, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lavvina Thiyagarajan
- The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rodney J Scott
- School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, College of Health and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
- Division of Molecular Medicine, NSW Health Pathology North, New Lambton, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Kunal Verma
- Monash Genetics, Monash Health, Melbourn, Victoria, Australia
- Monash Heart, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Paul A James
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospitals, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Julia Steinberg
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wallingford CK, Kovilpillai H, Jacobs C, Turbitt E, Primiero CA, Young MA, Brockman DG, Soyer HP, McInerney-Leo AM, Yanes T. Models of communication for polygenic scores and associated psychosocial and behavioral effects on recipients: A systematic review. Genet Med 2023; 25:1-11. [PMID: 36322150 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.09.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2022] [Revised: 09/14/2022] [Accepted: 09/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs. METHODS Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021). RESULTS In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4). CONCLUSION PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Courtney K Wallingford
- Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Hannah Kovilpillai
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Chris Jacobs
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Erin Turbitt
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Clare A Primiero
- Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Mary-Anne Young
- Kinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia; St Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - H Peter Soyer
- Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Dermatology Department, The Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Aideen M McInerney-Leo
- Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Tatiane Yanes
- Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kaphingst KA, Bather JR, Daly BM, Chavez-Yenter D, Vega A, Kohlmann WK. Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women. Front Genet 2022; 13:866062. [PMID: 35495140 PMCID: PMC9047995 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.866062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2022] [Accepted: 03/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Sequencing technologies can inform individuals’ risks for multiple conditions, supporting population-level screening approaches. Prior research examining interest in genetic testing has not generally examined the context of population-based approaches offered in routine healthcare or among ethnically diverse populations. Cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening could be offered broadly to women of reproductive age. This study therefore examined interest in these tests when offered as part of routine care, and predictors of interest, among an ethnically diverse sample of women aged 20–35. We conducted an online English-language survey of 450 women; 39% identified as Latina. We examined predictors of interest for two outcomes, interest in testing in the next year and level of interest, in multivariable logistic regression models and stratified analyses by Latina ethnicity. More than half of respondents reported being interested in cancer predisposition testing (55%) and carrier screening (56%) in the next year; this did not differ by ethnicity. About 26% reported being very interested in cancer predisposition testing and 27% in carrier screening. Latina respondents (32%) were more likely to be very interested in cancer predisposition testing than non-Latina respondents (22%; p < 0.03). In multivariable models, having higher worry about genetic risks, higher genetic knowledge, and higher perceived importance of genetic information were associated with higher interest across multiple models. Predictors of interest were generally similar by ethnicity. Our findings show substantial interest in both cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening among young women as part of routine healthcare with similar interest between Latina and non-Latina women. Efforts to broadly offer such testing could be important in improving access to genetic information. It will be critical to develop tools to help healthcare providers communicate about genetic testing and to address the needs of those who have less prior knowledge about genetics to support informed decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kimberly A. Kaphingst
- Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
- *Correspondence: Kimberly A. Kaphingst,
| | - Jemar R. Bather
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Brianne M. Daly
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Daniel Chavez-Yenter
- Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Alexis Vega
- Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Wendy K. Kohlmann
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Saya S, McIntosh JG, Winship IM, Milton S, Clendenning M, Kyriakides M, Oberoi J, Buchanan DD, Jenkins MA, Emery JD. Informed choice and attitudes regarding a genomic test to predict risk of colorectal cancer in general practice. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2022; 105:987-995. [PMID: 34400040 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.08.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2020] [Revised: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 08/05/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE A genomic test to predict personal risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) that targets screening and could be feasibly implemented in primary care. We explored informed decision-making and attitudes towards genomic testing in this setting. METHODS A CRC genomic test was offered to 150 general practice patients with brief discussion of its implications. We measured informed choice about the test, consisting knowledge, attitudes and test uptake. Sixteen purposively-sampled participants were interviewed. RESULTS Of 150, 142 (95%) completed the informed choice measure and of 27 invited, 16 (59%) completed an interview. 73% made an informed choice about the test. Interviews revealed that participants with inadequate knowledge on the informed choice scale still understood the gist of the test. While positive attitudes were most prevalent, some had concerns, and many were indifferent to the test. Positive attitudes included: that risk information could facilitate risk reduction; negative attitudes included: that risk results could cause worry and be used for insurance discrimination; indifferent attitudes included: that the test seemed benign and it was easy to do. CONCLUSIONS Our study adds to the evidence that genomic tests for CRC risk do not pose significant concern to patients in community settings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS As genomic tests become more prevalent, this study's findings can be used to facilitate informed decision-making and ensure equitable access.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sibel Saya
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Jennifer G McIntosh
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Software Systems & Cybersecurity, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Ingrid M Winship
- Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Genomic Medicine & Family Cancer Clinic, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Shakira Milton
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Mark Clendenning
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Colorectal Oncogenomics Group, Department of Clinical Pathology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Mary Kyriakides
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Jasmeen Oberoi
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Daniel D Buchanan
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Colorectal Oncogenomics Group, Department of Clinical Pathology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Mark A Jenkins
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Jon D Emery
- Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Smit AK, Allen M, Beswick B, Butow P, Dawkins H, Dobbinson SJ, Dunlop KL, Espinoza D, Fenton G, Kanetsky PA, Keogh L, Kimlin MG, Kirk J, Law MH, Lo S, Low C, Mann GJ, Reyes-Marcelino G, Morton RL, Newson AJ, Savard J, Trevena L, Wordsworth S, Cust AE. Impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention behaviors and psychological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Genet Med 2021; 23:2394-2403. [PMID: 34385669 PMCID: PMC8629758 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01292-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2021] [Revised: 07/16/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose We evaluated the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on sun-related behaviors and psychological outcomes. Methods In this parallel group, open, randomized controlled trial, 1,025 Australians of European ancestry without melanoma and aged 18–69 years were recruited via the Medicare database (3% consent). Participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 513; saliva sample for genetic testing, personalized melanoma risk booklet based on a 40-variant polygenic risk score, telephone-based genetic counseling, educational booklet) or control (n = 512; educational booklet). Wrist-worn ultraviolet (UV) radiation dosimeters (10-day wear) and questionnaires were administered at baseline, 1 month postintervention, and 12 months postbaseline. Results At 12 months, 948 (92%) participants completed dosimetry and 973 (95%) the questionnaire. For the primary outcome, there was no effect of the genomic risk intervention on objectively measured UV exposure at 12 months, irrespective of traditional risk factors. For secondary outcomes at 12 months, the intervention reduced sunburns (risk ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.96), and increased skin examinations among women. Melanoma-related worry was reduced. There was no overall impact on general psychological distress. Conclusion Personalized genomic risk information did not influence sun exposure patterns but did improve some skin cancer prevention and early detection behaviors, suggesting it may be useful for precision prevention. There was no evidence of psychological harm.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia.,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Martin Allen
- Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Brooke Beswick
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Phyllis Butow
- Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hugh Dawkins
- Division of Genetics, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.,School of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Kate L Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - David Espinoza
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Georgina Fenton
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Peter A Kanetsky
- H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Louise Keogh
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Michael G Kimlin
- Queensland University of Technology, School of Biomedical Sciences, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Judy Kirk
- Westmead Clinical School and Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Matthew H Law
- Statistical Genetics, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.,Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Serigne Lo
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Cynthia Low
- Consumer representative, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Graham J Mann
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,The John Curtin School of Medical Research, ANU College of Health and Medicine, ANU, ACT, Canberra, Australia
| | - Gillian Reyes-Marcelino
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Rachael L Morton
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jacqueline Savard
- School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
| | - Lyndal Trevena
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia. .,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Dunlop K, Rankin NM, Smit AK, Salgado Z, Newson AJ, Keogh L, Cust AE. Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public. Health Expect 2021; 24:1326-1336. [PMID: 33974726 PMCID: PMC8369084 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2021] [Revised: 03/12/2021] [Accepted: 04/10/2021] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk-stratified (risk-tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges. OBJECTIVES To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies. METHOD Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset. RESULTS Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high-risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low-risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently. CONCLUSIONS Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk-stratified cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Dunlop
- Daffodil CentreThe University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSWSydneyNSWAustralia
- Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Nicole M. Rankin
- Sydney School of Public Health, The Faculty of Medicine and HealthThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Amelia K. Smit
- Daffodil CentreThe University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSWSydneyNSWAustralia
- Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Zofia Salgado
- Daffodil CentreThe University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSWSydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Ainsley J. Newson
- Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, The Faculty of Medicine and HealthThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Louise Keogh
- Melbourne School of Population and Global HealthThe University of MelbourneMelbourneVICAustralia
| | - Anne E. Cust
- Daffodil CentreThe University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSWSydneyNSWAustralia
- Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Etchegary H, Pullman D, Simmonds C, Rabie Z, Rahman P. Identifying Aspects of Public Attitudes Toward Whole Genome Sequencing to Inform the Integration of Genomics into Care. Public Health Genomics 2021; 24:229-240. [PMID: 34038902 DOI: 10.1159/000515952] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2020] [Accepted: 03/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The growth of global sequencing initiatives and commercial genomic test offerings suggests the public will increasingly be confronted with decisions about sequencing. Understanding public attitudes can assist efforts to integrate sequencing into care and inform the development of public education and outreach strategies. METHODS A 48-item online survey was advertised on Facebook in Eastern Canada and hosted on SurveyMonkey in late 2018. The survey measured public interest in whole genome sequencing and attitudes toward various aspects of sequencing using vignettes, scaled, and open-ended items. RESULTS While interest in sequencing was high, critical attitudes were observed. In particular, items measuring features of patient control and choice regarding genomic data were strongly endorsed by respondents. Majority wanted to specify upfront how their data could be used, retain the ability to withdraw their sample at a later date, sign a written consent form, and speak to a genetic counselor prior to sequencing. Concerns about privacy and unauthorized access to data were frequently observed. Education level was the sociodemographic variable most often related to attitude statements such that those with higher levels of education generally displayed more critical attitudes. CONCLUSIONS Attitudes identified here could be used to inform the development of implementation strategies for genomic medicine. Findings suggest health systems must address patient concerns about privacy, consent practices, and the strong desire to control what happens to their genomic data through public outreach and education. Specific oversight procedures and policies that are clearly communicated to the public will be required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Holly Etchegary
- Assistant Professor Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Daryl Pullman
- Professor of Medicine (Bioethics), Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Charlene Simmonds
- Manager, Health Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Zoha Rabie
- Research Assistant, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Proton Rahman
- Professor of Medicine (Rheumatology), Memorial University and Rheumatologist, Eastern Regional Health Authority, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
| |
Collapse
|