ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: 1 in 40 UK Jewish individuals carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/BRCA2. Traditional testing criteria miss half of carriers, and so population genetic testing is being piloted for Jewish people in England. There has been no qualitative research into the factors influencing BRCA awareness and testing experience in this group. This study aimed to explore these and inform improvements for the implementation of population genetic testing. METHODS: Qualitative study of UK Jewish adults who have undergone BRCA testing. We conducted one-to-one semistructured interviews via telephone or video call using a predefined topic guide, until sufficient information power was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: 32 individuals were interviewed (28 carriers, 4 non-carriers). We interpreted five themes intersecting across six time points of the testing pathway: (1) individual differences regarding personal/family history of cancer, demographics and personal attitudes/approach; (2) healthcare professionals' support; (3) pathway access and integration; (4) nature of family/partner relationships; and (5) Jewish community factors. Testing was largely triggered by connecting information to a personal/family history of cancer. No participants reported decision regret, although there was huge variation in satisfaction. Suggestions were given around increasing UK Jewish community awareness, making information and support services personally relevant and proactive case management of carriers. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to improve UK Jewish community BRCA awareness and to highlight personal relevance of testing for individuals without a personal/family history of cancer. Traditional testing criteria caused multiple issues regarding test access and experience. Carriers want information and support services tailored to their individual circumstances.
