Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.

Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for high-risk women interested in BRCA1/2 testing has been shown to yield positive outcomes comparable to usual care (UC; in-person) genetic counseling. However, little is known about how genetic counselors perceive the delivery of these alternate forms of genetic counseling. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus UC, genetic counselors completed a 5-item genetic counselor process questionnaire (GCQ) assessing key elements of pre-test sessions (information delivery, emotional support, addressing questions and concerns, tailoring of session, and facilitation of decision-making) with the 479 female participants (TC, N = 236; UC, N = 243). The GCQ scores did not differ for TC vs. UC sessions (t (477) = 0.11, p = 0.910). However, multivariate analysis showed that participant race/ethnicity significantly predicted genetic counselor perceptions (ß = 0.172, p < 0.001) in that the GCQ scores were lower for minorities in TC and UC. Exploratory analyses suggested that GCQ scores may be associated with patient preference for UC versus TC (t (79) = 2.21, p = 0.030). Additionally, we found that genetic counselor ratings of session effectiveness were generally concordant with patient perceptions of the session. These data indicate that genetic counselors perceive that key components of TC can be delivered as effectively as UC, and that these elements may contribute to specific aspects of patient satisfaction. However, undefined process differences may be present which account for lower counselor perceptions about the effectiveness of their sessions with minority women (i.e., those other than non-Hispanic Whites). We discuss other potential clinical and research implications of our findings.

Patient Perceptions of Telephone vs. In-Person BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling.

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.

Prevalence and correlates of mothers and fathers attending pretest cancer genetic counseling together.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of fathers' attendance at pretest cancer genetic counseling sessions with mothers undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) risk, and to identify psychosocial and other correlates of fathers' attendance. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-one fathers of minor-age children who were spouses/partners of women (mothers) undergoing such counseling and testing were recruited, completed a behavioral self-report survey, and provided data about their sociodemographic backgrounds, father-child cancer communication histories, parenting relationship quality, and information-seeking and perceived knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 27.3% of fathers attended pretest cancer genetic counseling with mothers. Compared to fathers who did not attend pretest cancer genetic counseling, those who did had stronger parenting alliances with mothers, were more likely to have sought out information about BRCA1/2 testing, and felt more informed about testing. In an adjusted logistic regression model of session attendance, the strength of the parenting alliance was associated with a 6% increase in the likelihood of attending genetic counseling (odds ratio [OR]=1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.01, 1.12, p<.05) and greater perceived knowledge about BRCA1/2 testing was associated with a four-fold increase in the likelihood of session attendance (OR=4.03, CI=1.77, 9.37, p<.001). CONCLUSION: One in three fathers attend pretest cancer genetic counseling with mothers undergoing BRCA1/2 testing; those who do have closer parenting relationships and are more informed about BRCA1/2 testing. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: When possible, providers should discuss mothers including fathers in cancer genetic counseling sessions as this may affect outcomes of HBOC genetic counseling and testing.

Telephone genetic counseling for high-risk women undergoing BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: rationale and development of a randomized controlled trial.

Genetic counseling and testing, particularly for adult onset conditions, has become increasingly available over the last decade, and it is expected that this trend will continue as additional genes are identified and as such testing diffuses into mainstream clinical care. To meet the increased demand for services, it will become necessary to explore alternative avenues to traditional face-to-face genetic counseling. One such modality is the use of telephone genetic counseling (TGC), which is easy to implement and still allows for comprehensive service delivery. Although TGC has been used with increased frequency, there is a paucity of data about its effectiveness and impact on important patient outcomes. This paper provides an overview of the evolution of telephone counseling in nongenetics and genetics settings. The rationale and aims of the largest randomized clinical trial to be performed with this mode of counseling in the context of cancer susceptibility testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are also explained. In addition, procedural aspects of the genetic counseling intervention and the novel tools developed to facilitate this process and to ensure adequate counselor training and quality assurance are described.

Practical aspects of delivering hereditary cancer risk counseling.

The primary element involved in the practical delivery of hereditary cancer risk counseling is the development of a cancer genetics service. This service should involve a multidisciplinary core of specialists, aim to identify at-risk individuals and their families, and provide comprehensive genetic counseling with the option of genetic testing. This article examines the development of a cancer genetics service beginning with the fundamentals of patient ascertainment, location, staffing, and billing. It also reviews the elements involved in the provision of genetic counseling services, including formalized risk assessment and risk communication. Finally, we review novel modes of delivery of genetic counseling including the use of telephone counseling and telemedicine as a means of expanding the scope of this service and extending its reach to individuals who might otherwise not have access to a risk assessment clinic. Overall, this presentation can serve as a resource for identifying the practical aspects involved in the delivery of hereditary cancer risk counseling and their subsequent integration into the workings of a proficient cancer genetics service able to identify and serve at-risk patients and their family members.