Impact of barriers and motivators on intention and confidence to undergo hereditary cancer genetic testing.

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes can provide lifesaving information allowing for individualized cancer screening, prevention, and treatment. However, the determinants, both barriers and motivators, of genetic testing intention are not well described. A survey of barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to adult patients eligible for genetic testing based on cancer diagnosis who previously have not had genetic testing (n = 201). Associations between barriers/motivators with testing intention and confidence were examined first by correlation followed by multivariable linear regression model holding constant potential covariates. Seven barrier items from two domains (logistics and genetic testing knowledge) were found to significantly negatively correlate with genetic testing intention. Unexpectedly, three barrier items had significant positive correlation with genetic testing intention; these were related to family worry (passing a condition on to future generations) and testing knowledge (needing more information on the genetic testing process and what it has to offer). Ten barrier items had significant negative correlation with confidence to get a genetic test and encompassed four domains: stigma, insurance/genetic discrimination, knowledge, and cost. All motivator items were associated with intention to get a genetic test, while none were associated with confidence. Multivariable analysis yielded six total barriers (five from the knowledge domain, one from cost domain) and two motivators (relieved to know and treatment impact) that were significantly associated with genetic testing intention or confidence when controlling for demographic characteristics. These findings indicate the need for tailored interventions to amplify motivating factors and counter-message barriers to enhance patient motivation and confidence to undergo testing.

Outcome of BMI2+: Motivational Interviewing to Reduce BMI Through Primary Care AAP PROS Practices.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric obesity rates in the United States remain at an all-time high. Pediatric primary care clinicians and registered dietitians can help treat childhood obesity, and motivational interviewing (MI) has shown promising effects in prior trials. METHODS: We randomized 18 pediatric primary care practices to receive the Brief Motivational Interviewing to Reduce BMI or BMI2+ intervention or continue with usual care (UC). Practices were recruited through the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Research in Office Settings network. The intervention comprised 4 components1: in-person and telehealth MI counseling by pediatric clinicians; 4 recommended sessions,2 6 telephone MI counseling sessions from a registered dietitian,3 text message reminders and tailored motivational messages, and4 parent educational materials. The main outcome was the change in the percentage of the 95th percentile of BMI. The study was conducted 2017 through 2021. RESULTS: There was a significant treatment x time interaction (b = 0.017, 95% confidence interval: [0.0066-0.027]) for the main outcome, favoring the UC group, with youth in the intervention arm showing a greater relative increase in their percent of the 95th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: There was no overall benefit of the intervention and, contrary to expectations, youth in the intervention arm gained more weight, based on percent of the distance from the 95th percentile than matched youth from UC practices. The absolute excess weight gain among intervention relative to UC youth was small, approximately 0.5 BMI units and 1 kg over 2 years. We offer several potential explanations for these unexpected findings.

Controlling Hypertension through Education and Coaching in Kidney Disease (CHECK-D): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 30 million Americans. Early management focused on blood pressure (BP) control decreases cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Less than 40% of patients with CKD achieve recommended BP targets due to many barriers. These barriers include a lack of understanding of the implications of their diagnosis and how to optimise their health.This cluster randomised control trial hypothesises that the combination of early primary care CKD education, and motivational interviewing (MI)-based health coach support, will improve patient behaviours aligned with BP control by increasing patient knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation. The results will aid in sustainable interventions for future patient-centric education and coaching support to improve quality and outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5. Outcomes in patients with CKD stages 3-5 receiving the intervention will be compared with similar patients within a control group. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) and systems methodologies will be used to optimise resource neutrality and leverage existing technology to support implementation and future dissemination. The innovative approach of this research focuses on the importance of a multidisciplinary team, including off-site patient coaching, that can intervene early in the CKD care continuum by supporting patients with education and coaching. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will test impact of BP control when clinician-delivered education is followed by 12 months of MI-based health coaching. We will compare outcomes in 350 patients with CKD stages 3-5 between intervention and control groups in primary care. CQI and systems methodologies will optimise education and coaching for future implementation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Boards (IRBMED) HUM00136011, HUM00150672 and SITE00000092 and the results of the study will be published on ClinicalTrials.gov, in peer-reviewed journals, as well as conference abstracts, posters and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04087798.

Psychosocial factors impacting barriers and motivators to cancer genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Only a small proportion of patients who qualify for clinical genetic testing for cancer susceptibility get testing. Many patient-level barriers contribute to low uptake. In this study, we examined self-reported patient barriers and motivators for cancer genetic testing. METHODS: A survey comprised of both new and existing measures related to barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to patients with a diagnosis of cancer at a large academic medical center. Patients who self-reported receiving a genetic test were included in these analyses (n = 376). Responses about emotions following testing as well as barriers and motivators prior to getting testing were examined. Group differences in barriers and motivators by patient demographic characteristics were examined. RESULTS: Being assigned female at birth was associated with increased emotional, insurance, and family concerns as well as increased health benefits compared to patients assigned male at birth. Younger respondents had significantly higher emotional and family concerns compared to older respondents. Recently diagnosed respondents expressed fewer concerns about insurance implications and emotional concerns. Those with a BRCA-related cancer had higher scores on social and interpersonal concerns scale than those with other cancers. Participants with higher depression scores indicated increased emotional, social and interpersonal, and family concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported depression emerged as the most consistent factor influencing report of barriers to genetic testing. By incorporating mental health resources into clinical practice, oncologists may better identify those patients who might need more assistance following through with a referral for genetic testing and the response afterwards.

The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study's innovative approaches to promote uptake of clinical genetic testing among cancer patients: a study protocol for a 3-arm randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although most cancers are sporadic, germline genetic variants are implicated in 5-10% of cancer cases. Clinical genetic testing identifies pathogenic germline genetic variants for hereditary cancers. The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study is a three-arm randomized clinical trial that aims to test the efficacy of two patient-level behavioral interventions on uptake of cancer genetic testing. METHODS: The two interventions being tested are (1) a virtual genetics navigator and (2) motivational interviewing by genetic health coaches. Eligible participants are adults with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer who meet the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Participants are recruited through community oncology practices affiliated with the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) and have used the Family Health History Tool (FHHT) to determine testing eligibility. The recruitment goal is 759 participants, who will be randomized to usual care or to either the virtual genetics navigator or the motivational interviewing intervention arms. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals who complete germline genetic testing within 6 months. DISCUSSION: This study addresses patient-level factors which are associated with the uptake of genetic testing. The study will test two different intervention approaches, both of which can help address the shortage of genetic counselors and improve access to care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan Medical School (HUM00192898) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05162846).

Motivational interviewing for genetic counseling: A unified framework for persuasive and equipoise conversations.

Genetic counselors (GCs) have traditionally been trained to adopt a position of equipoise or clinical neutrality. They provide information, answer questions, address barriers, and engage in shared decision-making, but generally, they do not prescribe a genetic test. Historically, GCs have generally been trained not to persuade the ambivalent or resistant patient. More recently, however, there has been discussion regarding when a greater degree of persuasion or directionality may be appropriate within genetic counseling (GC) and what role MI may play in this process. The role for "persuasive GC" is based on the premise that some genetic tests provide actionable information that would clearly benefit patients and families by impacting treatment or surveillance. For other tests, the benefits are less clear as they do not directly impact patient care or the benefits may be more subjective in nature, driven by patient values or psychological needs. For the former, we propose that GCs may adopt a more persuasive clinical approach while for the latter, a more traditional equipoise stance may be more appropriate. We suggest that motivational interviewing (MI) could serve as a unifying counseling model that allows GCs to handle both persuasive and equipoise encounters. For clearly beneficial tests, while directional, the MI encounter can still be non-directive, autonomy-supportive, and patient-centered. MI can also be adapted for equipoise situations, for example, placing less emphasis on eliciting and strengthening change talk as that is more a behavior change strategy than a shared decision-making strategy. The core principles and strategies of MI, such as autonomy support, evocation, open questions, reflective listening, and affirmation would apply to both persuasive and equipoise encounters. Key issues that merit discussion include how best to train GCs both during their initial and post-graduate education.

Reducing paediatric overweight and obesity through motivational interviewing: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial in the AAP PROS research network.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care remains an underused venue for prevention and management of paediatric overweight and obesity. A prior trial demonstrated a significant impact of paediatrician/nurse practitioner (Ped/NP)-and registered dietitian (RD)-delivered motivational interviewing (MI) on child body mass index (BMI). The study described here will test the effectiveness of an enhanced version of this primary care-based MI counselling intervention on child BMI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cluster randomised effectiveness trial includes 24 Ped/NPs from 18 paediatric primary care practices that belong to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) national Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) practice-based research network. To date, practices have been randomised (nine to intervention and nine to usual care). Intervention Ped/NPs have been trained in MI, behavioural therapy, billing/coding for weight management and study procedures. Usual care Ped/NPs received training in billing/coding and study procedures only. Children 3- 11 years old with BMI >the 85th percentile were identified via electronic health records (EHRs). Parents from intervention practices have been recruited and enrolled. Over about 2 years, these parents are offered approximately 10 MI-based counselling sessions (about four in person sessions with their child's Ped/NP and up to six telephonic sessions with a trained RD). The primary outcome is change in child BMI (defined as per cent from median BMI for age and sex) over the study period. The primary comparison is between eligible children in intervention practices whose parents enrol in the study and all eligible children in usual care practices. Data sources will include EHRs, billing records, surveys and counselling call notes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the AAP. All Ped/NPs provided written informed consent, and intervention group parents provided consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) authorisation. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and appropriate AAP channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03177148; Pre-results.