A B S T R A C T PurposeAlthough guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery. Patients and MethodsParticipants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n ϭ 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n ϭ 335). UC participants received in-person pre-and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC. ResultsTC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d ϭ 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, Ϫ0.61), perceived stress (d ϭ Ϫ0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d ϭ Ϫ0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, Ϫ0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d ϭ 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d ϭ Ϫ1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of $114 per patient. ConclusionGenetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs. J Clin

Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer risk has been associated with positive outcomes in high risk women. However, little is known about how patients perceive TC. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus usual care (UC; in-person genetic counseling), we compared high risk women’s perceptions of: (1) overall satisfaction with genetic counseling; (2) convenience; (3) attentiveness during the session; (4) counselor effectiveness in providing support; and (5) counselor ability to recognize emotional responses during the session. Among the 554 participants (TC, N=272; UC, N=282), delivery mode was not associated with self-reported satisfaction. However, TC participants found counseling significantly more convenient than UC participants (OR = 4.78, 95% CI = 3.32, 6.89) while also perceiving lower levels of support (OR=0.56, 95% CI=0.40–0.80) and emotional recognition (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.37–0.76). In exploratory analyses, we found that non-Hispanic white participants reported higher counselor support in UC than in TC (69.4% vs. 52.8%; OR = 3.06, 95% CI = 1.39–6.74), while minority women perceived less support in UC vs. TC (58.3% vs. 38.7%; OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.39–1.65). We discuss potential research and practice implications of these findings which may further improve the effectiveness and utilization of TC.

PurposeAs genetic counseling and testing become more fully-integrated into clinical care, alternative delivery models are increasingly prominent. This study examines predictors of genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer among high-risk women in a randomized trial of in-person vs. telephone-based genetic counseling.MethodsMethods include multivariable logistic regression and interaction analyses.ResultsOf the 669 participants, 600 completed counseling and 523 received test results. As previously reported, participants randomized to telephone counseling were significantly less likely to be tested. In intention to treat analyses, completion of counseling and testing was associated with: race/ethnicity (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.20-3.20), , perceived stress (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.98, knowledge (OR=1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.23), and randomization group (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.01-2.16).. Further, race/ethnicity moderated the association between randomization group and testing, where minority women receiving telephone counseling were least likely to complete testing.ConclusionEvidence for logistical and communication-based explanations for this interaction are presented. The overall increased access made possible with telephone genetic counseling should be considered in light of the possibility that this may also lead to lower rates of testing among high-risk minority women. Additional care should be taken to assess and address potential barriers when services are delivered by phone.