The psychological impact of an unfavorable genetic test result for counselees at risk for hereditary cancer seems to be limited: only 10–20 % of counselees have psychological problems after testing positive for a known familial mutation. The objective of this study was to find prognostic factors that can predict which counselees are most likely to develop psychological problems after presymptomatic genetic testing. Counselees with a 50 % risk of BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome completed questionnaires at three time-points: after receiving a written invitation for a genetic counseling intake (T1), 2–3 days after receiving their DNA test result (T2), and 4–6 weeks later (T3). The psychological impact of the genetic test result was examined shortly and 4–6 weeks after learning their test result. Subsequently, the influence of various potentially prognostic factors on psychological impact were examined in the whole group. Data from 165 counselees were analyzed. Counselees with an unfavorable outcome did not have more emotional distress, but showed significantly more cancer worries 4–6 weeks after learning their test result. Prognostic factors for cancer worries after genetic testing were pre-existing cancer worries, being single, a high risk perception of getting cancer, and an unfavorable test result. Emotional distress was best predicted by pre-existing cancer worries and pre-existing emotional distress. The psychological impact of an unfavorable genetic test result appears considerable if it is measured as “worries about cancer.” Genetic counselors should provide additional guidance to counselees with many cancer worries, emotional distress, a high risk perception or a weak social network.
Next-generation sequencing enabled us to create a population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) test that simultaneously tests for 50 serious autosomal recessive diseases. Before offering this test universally, we wanted to know what factors are related to intended participation and how the general public can be informed about the test without being influenced in their intention to participate. We studied this by measuring to what extent 'message framing' and 'narrative information' can influence people's intended participation. Data were collected by means of an online survey of 504 potential users, and the factors examined were based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and on previous research on intended participation in preconception carrier screening. Message framing was manipulated by explaining the risk of couple carriership in different ways, while narrative information was provided to only half of the respondents. The factors most positively related to intended participation were perceiving benefits of the screening, having a positive attitude towards the screening, having no religion, having an actual child wish and experiencing the choice to participate as easy. Perceived benefits and a positive attitude were most influential factors by far. Message framing and narrative information had no significant effect on intended participation, reinforcing that message framing and narrative information can help to inform the general public about ECS without influencing their intended participation. Future research should study if the importance of perceived benefits and a positive attitude can be replicated when other factors are included and when actual participation is measured instead of intended participation. European Journal of Human Genetics (2017) 25, 793-800; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2017.74; published online 3 May 2017 INTRODUCTION Approximately 1-2 in 100 couples are at risk of having a child affected with a recessive genetic condition. 1 Population based expanded carrier screening (ECS) makes it possible to test couples before pregnancy for relevant recessive genetic conditions simultaneously. The preconception period might be considered a better time than the prenatal period, because it results in more reproductive options being available and termination of pregnancy can be avoided. 2 Next-generation sequencing techniques enabled us to create such a population-based ECS test that simultaneously tests for 50 serious autosomal recessive diseases. 3 The composition of this panel was based on previous research, multidisciplinary discussions and stakeholder meetings. Screening results are couple-based, so only couples who are both carriers of the same disease get positive results. However, before this test can be offered in a public healthcare setting, we needed a better understanding of the factors driving intended participation and how the general public could be better informed-but not influenced -in their intention to participate. This information is important because it is clear from previous research a...
Patient empowerment has been identified as a key outcome goal in genetic counselling, and a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) has been developed to measure empowerment in genetic services: the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS). Here we validate the GCOS for a large and diverse Dutch study sample of 2194 patients referred to two clinical genetic centres for counselling about a wide range of conditions (heart disease, neurological disorders, cancer, congenital syndromes, intellectual disability and prenatal pathology). Our results suggest that the GCOS consists of a hierarchical 6factor structure, with a main scale for empowerment and six subscales: uncertainty about heredity, hope, negative emotions, knowledge about the condition, knowledge about genetic services and uncertainty about the treatment. Six of the original 24 GCOS items were removed due to low factor loadings and small inter-item correlations. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the main scale and most subscales were satisfactory. Convergent validity was confirmed by moderate positive and moderate/strong negative associations between the GCOS main scale and other validated outcome measures. Responsiveness was comparable to that of other validated outcome measures. We saw significant improvement in the GCOS main scale and all the subscales after the first genetic counselling session. This study contributes to the international validation process of the GCOS, with the ultimate goal of using this instrument as a PROM, with empowerment as an outcome measure, to evaluate and improve the quality of genetic counselling in various clinical genetics settings.
The introduction of a choice to learn pre-symptomatic DNA test results for BRCA or Lynch syndrome either face-to-face or by letter Voorwinden, J. S.; Jaspers, J. P. C.; ter Beest, J. G.; Kievit, Y.; Sijmons, R. H.; Oosterwijk, J. C. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. In predictive DNA testing for hereditary cancer, test results should traditionally be disclosed face-to-face. Increasingly, however, counselees ask to receive their test result at home by letter. To compare the quality of genetic counselling in the traditional way to a procedure in which counselees are offered a choice on how to get their test result. Counselees from families with a known BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome mutation were randomised into two groups. The control group was given the DNA test result in a face-to-face consultation. In the intervention group people could choose to learn their test result face-to-face or by letter. The quality of genetic counselling was assessed through questionnaires at three different moments. Data of 198 counselees were analysed. The quality of genetic counselling and psychological functioning were equally good in both groups. The majority of cases chose for disclosure by letter. The counselees with a good test result in the intervention group were the most satisfied. Our results indicate that in predictive DNA testing for BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome, a choice protocol is equally safe and more satisfying. Moreover, it is more efficient for both counsellor and counselee.
We performed a large outcome study at group and individual level in which the goals of genetic counselling were operationalized into cognitive and affective outcomes: empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety. We then examined which socio-demographic and clinical variables were associated with changes in these outcomes. Data came from 1479 counselees who completed questionnaires (GCOS-18, PPC and STAI) at three time points: before the start of genetic counselling, after the first consultation and after the results of genetic counselling were disclosed. Results showed that at group level empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety improved significantly after the whole genetic counselling process. Effect-sizes were medium for empowerment and small for the other outcomes. At individual level, 48% of counselees improved in empowerment, 21% in perceived personal control and 17% in anxiety. Around 10% of counselees worsened on all outcomes. Only ‘reason for referral’ and ‘genetic test result’ were significantly associated with changes in outcomes. This study demonstrated improvements among counselees in cognitive and affective outcomes after genetic counselling at group level. However, our results also suggest that there are opportunities for improvement at individual level, as many counselees remained stable and some even worsened on all outcomes. Routine outcome monitoring could help to explore the needs of counselees and could help to identify counselees who worsen.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.