Effects of diet education on empowerment for individuals who have an increased risk of developing breast or colon cancer: A pilot study

Strong evidence indicates following a healthy diet reduces cancer risk; however, the impact of diet education on empowerment on individuals with an increased cancer risk has not been evaluated. Study participants included patients who had met with a cancer genetic counselor without a history of cancer. Participants received pre- and post-diet education surveys including questions to measure empowerment and feedback for diet education in relation to cancer risk. Empowerment was measured using a ten-question survey adapted from the Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale. The diet education intervention consisted of viewing an infographic created for this study based on recommendations for diets that reduce cancer risk by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research. Twenty-eight participants completed both surveys and reviewed the diet education intervention. There was no change in empowerment between pre- and post- diet education (mean change = -0.5; p = 0.49). Participants previously learned about the relationship between a healthy diet and cancer risk reduction from several sources including family and friends (25.0%), online (25.0%), and primary care providers (25.0%). Most participants preferred diet education to be delivered online (42.9%), followed by on paper (39.3%), and in-person delivery (17.9%). This pilot study promotes further investigation on the impact of diet or lifestyle education on individuals who have a predisposition to developing cancer. While the results demonstrated no change in empowerment because of diet education, the results established a desire for learning about a healthy diet related to cancer risk and preferences for the modes of delivering education.

#earlydetection: Leveraging social media to recruit individuals at increased-risk of pancreas cancer for an early detection study

e14577

Background: Social media (SM) could transform how individuals learn of clinical trials. In an ongoing, single-center cohort study to collect serial biospecimens and clinical data from high-risk individuals (HRIs) for pancreatic cancer (PC), we explored how HRIs learned of the study, surveyed relevant SM posts and compared those referred by SM vs. other means. Methods: Initial recruitment focused on HRIs with familial risk for PC. Referral method was self-reported. We identified relevant SM posts and compared those referred via SM vs. other means by ANOVA and t-test. Investigators did not create SM content but were featured in a relevant local news clip, institutional blog post and Project Purple podcast; study-related media was IRB-approved. Results: We enrolled 91 HRIs between Aug 2018 and Jan 2019. Over half self-referred; 55.0% of self-referrals came from SM. We identified 16 unique SM posts, all to Facebook. Authors were 2 administrators for local hereditary cancer organizations, Project Purple, UNMC and 2 study subjects (9,4, 3 and 2 posts). Content included links to a podcast, clinicaltrials.gov, local news story, blog post, live chat and anecdotes from subjects. Nine posts shared study contact information or clinicaltrials.gov link. The mean age of those referred via SM was younger than for other methods (mean 49.2 vs. 53.4y) but was not statistically significant (p = 0.19). SM was more likely to recruit HRIs with familial risk than other methods (100.0% vs. 76.3%; p < 0.01) Conclusions: SM effectively recruited HRIs with familial risk for PC; this group may be more likely to seek information online. Individuals may find studies via SM without investigator involvement. SM may be an effective tool to recruit HRIs to early detection research in PC and other conditions. Clinical trial information: NCT03568630. [Table: see text]

Publishing a master's thesis: a guide for novice authors

Publication of original research, clinical experiences, and critical reviews of literature are vital to the growth of the genetic counseling field, delivery of genetic counseling services, and professional development of genetic counselors. Busy clinical schedules, lack of time and funding, and training that emphasizes clinical skills over research skills may make it difficult for new genetic counselors to turn their thesis projects into publications. This paper summarizes and elaborates upon a presentation aimed at de-mystifying the publishing process given at the 2008 National Society of Genetic Counselors Annual Education Conference. Specific topics include familiarizing prospective authors, particularly genetic counseling students, with the basics of the publication process and related ethical considerations. Former students’ experiences with publishing master’s theses also are described in hopes of encouraging new genetic counselors to submit for publication papers based on their thesis projects.

Sharing GJB2/GJB6 Genetic Test Information with Family Members

Although GJB2/GJB6 genetic testing for non-syndromic hearing loss is available, there is no information regarding sharing of test results with family members. A qualitative study was conducted to elucidate if, how, and why parents of a child with hearing loss share GJB2/GJB6 test results with relatives. Parents whose child had testing (n = 7 positive, n = 4 negative, n = 1 inconclusive results) participated in a semi-structured interview and responses were analyzed using qualitative methods. All participants shared the test result with at least one relative, but selective non-disclosure also was observed. Reasons for, and reactions to, sharing were diverse and differed as a function of test result. In comparing the results from this study to published literature, similarities and differences were identified with regards to disclosure of genetic test results for hearing loss versus other conditions. Differences suggest that hearing loss may have unique attributes that influence responses to genetic test information. Further research is needed to replicate these findings.