Conducting inclusive research in genetics for transgender, gender-diverse, and sex-diverse individuals: Case analyses and recommendations from a clinical genomics study.

A person's phenotypic sex (i.e., endogenous expression of primary, secondary, and endocrinological sex characteristics) can impact crucial aspects of genetic assessment and resulting clinical care recommendations. In studies with genetics components, it is critical to collect phenotypic sex, information about current organ/tissue inventory and hormonal milieu, and gender identity. If researchers do not carefully construct data models, transgender, gender diverse, and sex diverse (TGSD) individuals may be given inappropriate care recommendations and/or be subjected to misgendering, inflicting medical and psychosocial harms. The recognized need for an inclusive care experience should not be limited to clinical practice but should extend to the research setting, where researchers must build an inclusive experience for TGSD participants. Here, we review three TGSD participants in the Family History and Cancer Risk Study (FOREST) to critically evaluate sex- and gender-related survey measures and associated data models in a study seeking to identify patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. Furthermore, we leverage these participants' responses to sex- and gender identity-related questions in FOREST to inform needed changes to the FOREST data model and to make recommendations for TGSD-inclusive genetics research design, data models, and processes.

Leveraging electronic health records to inform genetic counseling practice surrounding psychiatric disorders.

Since nearly one-fifth of US adults have a psychiatric disorder, genetic counselors (GCs) will see many patients with these indications. However, GCs' reports of inadequate preparation and low confidence in providing care for patients with psychiatric disorders can limit their ability to meet patient's needs. How frequently psychiatric disorders present in GC sessions is currently unclear. Here, we used deidentified electronic health records (EHR) to estimate the prevalence of 16 psychiatric disorders. In 7,155 GC patients, 34% had a diagnostic code associated with a psychiatric disorder; 23% with anxiety/phobic disorders; 21% with mood disorder/depression; 5% with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); and 1% with psychotic disorders. Compared to 415,709 demographically matched controls, GC patients showed a significantly higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders (GC prevalence: 34%, matched prevalence: 30%, p-value < 0.0001) driven predominantly by anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and ADHD. Within GC specialties (prenatal: n = 2,674, cancer: n = 1,474, pediatric: n = 465), only pediatric GC patients showed a significant increase in psychiatric disorder prevalence overall (pediatric GC prevalence: 28%, matched prevalence: 13%, p-value < 0.0001). However, significant evidence of increased prevalence existed for generalized anxiety disorder (prenatal GC prevalence 6.4%, matched prevalence: 4.9%, p-value < 0.0001), anxiety disorders (cancer GC prevalence: 26%, matched prevalence: 21%, p-value < 0.0001 and pediatric GC prevalence: 12%, matched prevalence: 5.5%), and ADHD (pediatric GC prevalence: 18%, matched prevalence: 7.9%, p-value < 0.0001). These results highlight the need for additional guidance around care for patients with psychiatric disorders and the value of EHR-based research in genetic counseling.

Building an infrastructure to enable delivery of genomic medicine.

To meaningfully address health disparities in access to genomic testing, major developments in the infrastructure to support delivery of care are needed. The current value chain for delivering genomic medicine is fragmented, with poor communication between the stakeholders who order, perform, and reimburse for genetic tests. Standards, connectivity, and scaled expertise are needed to reach more people equitably and achieve healthcare returns on society's investments in genomics. As the costs of genetically-targeted therapeutics and treatments rise, a mature infrastructure to support the delivery of genetic tests becomes critical.

Advancing the genetic counseling profession through research: Identification of priorities by the National Society of Genetic Counselors research task force.

To help advance research critical to the achievement of the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) strategic objectives, coordination and prioritization of society resources are needed. NSGC convened a task force to advance research necessary for the achievement of our strategic objectives by reviewing existing society-supported research efforts identifying gaps in current research, and coordinating society resources, the task force was formed in order to coordinate and prioritize society resources to advance research critical to the achievement of our strategic objectives. The task force developed a research agenda outlining high-priority research questions for the next 5 years. The questions are organized into four domains: (a) Genetic Counseling Clients; (b) Genetic Counseling Process and Outcomes; (c) Value of Genetic Counseling Services; and (d) Access to Genetic Counseling Services. This framework can be used to advocate for research and funding priorities within NSGC and with other key research entities to stimulate the growth and advancement of the genetic counseling profession.

Clinical Genetics Lacks Standard Definitions and Protocols for the Collection and Use of Diversity Measures.

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

Genetic Test Availability And Spending: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going?

Genetic testing and spending on that testing have grown rapidly since the mapping of the human genome in 2003. However, it is not widely known how many tests there are, how they are used, and how they are paid for. Little evidence from large data sets about their use has emerged. We shed light on the issue of genetic testing by providing an overview of the testing landscape. We examined test availability and spending for the full spectrum of genetic tests, using unique data sources on test availability and commercial payer spending for privately insured populations, focusing particularly on tests measuring multiple genes in the period 2014-17. We found that there were approximately 75,000 genetic tests on the market, with about ten new tests entering the market daily. Prenatal tests accounted for the highest percentage of spending on genetic tests, and spending on hereditary cancer tests accounted for the second-highest. Our results provide insights for those interested in assessing genetic testing markets, test usage, and health policy implications, including current debates over the most appropriate regulatory and payer coverage mechanisms.

Adaptation of couples living with a high risk of breast/ovarian cancer and the association with risk-reducing surgery.

Women who carry BRCA1/2 mutations have a significantly elevated risk for breast and ovarian cancer. The positive test result and subsequent decisions about risk reducing behaviors can evoke distress, anxiety and worry. Psychological adaptation, or the process of coming to terms with the implications of a health threat, is an understudied construct in BRCA1/2 carriers. Little is known about adaptation and how it relates to other aspects of living at high risk for cancer. Even less is understood about adaptation among partners of BRCA1/2 carriers, and its relationship to adaptation in high risk individuals. Women at increased risk of breast/ovarian cancer (N = 103) and a subset of partners (N = 39) completed questionnaires that assessed risk management decisions (e.g. screening, risk-reducing surgery), dyadic coping, and the outcome of psychological adaptation. Women who had undergone risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) had significantly higher levels of adaptation than those who had not (t = 5.5, p < 0.001, d = 1.10). Partners of women who had undergone RRM also had higher levels of adaptation than partners of women who had not undergone RRM (t = 3.7, p = 0.01, d = 0.96), though this association was not statistically significant when controlling for carriers' adaptation. Undergoing risk-reducing oophorectomy was not associated with adaptation for BRCA1/2 carriers or their partners. Risk-reducing mastectomy is a significant event in the process of adapting to life at risk for hereditary cancer. Further, adaptation among partners is highly related to adaptation in carriers. These results aid in the understanding of the experience of couples living with cancer risk and the medical decisions related to adaptation.

Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing in an Era of Rapid Change.

The impacts of the Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad Supreme Court decision regarding patenting DNA segments and multi-gene testing on cancer genetic counseling practice have not been well described. We aimed to assess genetic counselors' perceptions of how their genetic testing-related practices for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) changed after these events. One-hundred fifty-two genetic counselors from the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group completed an anonymous, online, mixed-methods survey in November 2013. The survey presented four hypothetical patients and asked about changes in testing practice. Across the vignettes, a majority of participants reported specific changes in testing decisions following Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad and availability of multi-gene testing. Ninety-three percent of participants reported changing the types of first- and second-line tests they order for HBOC; the degree of change varied geographically. Qualitative analysis indicated that some counselors have altered the counseling session content, trading depth of information for breadth and spending more time counseling about uncertainty. This study shows that cancer genetic counselors are adapting quickly to genetic testing changes, but with wide variability. Findings suggest future research to elucidate clinicians' and patients' preferences for guidance on the clinical implementation of next-generation sequencing.

Standards for the Reporting of Genetic Counseling Interventions in Research and Other Studies (GCIRS): an NSGC Task Force Report.

As the demand for evidence to support the value of genetic counseling increases, it is critical that reporting of genetic counseling interventions in research and other types of studies (e.g. process improvement or service evaluation studies) adopt greater rigor. As in other areas of healthcare, the appraisal, synthesis, and translation of research findings into genetic counseling practice are likely to be improved if clear specifications of genetic counseling interventions are reported when studies involving genetic counseling are published. To help improve reporting practices, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) convened a task force in 2015 to develop consensus standards for the reporting of genetic counseling interventions. Following review by the NSGC Board of Directors, the NSGC Practice Guidelines Committee and the editorial board of the Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23 items across 8 domains were proposed as standards for the reporting of genetic counseling interventions in the published literature (GCIRS: Genetic Counseling Intervention Reporting Standards). The authors recommend adoption of these standards by authors and journals when reporting studies involving genetic counseling interventions.

Engagement and communication among participants in the ClinSeq Genomic Sequencing Study.

PURPOSE: As clinical genome sequencing expand its reach, understanding how individuals engage with this process are of critical importance. In this study, we aimed to describe internal engagement and its correlates among a ClinSeq cohort of adults consented to genome sequencing and receipt of results. METHODS: This study was framed using the precaution adoption process model (PAPM), in which knowledge predicts engagement and engagement predicts subsequent behaviors. Prior to receipt of sequencing results, 630 participants in the study completed a baseline survey. Engagement was assessed as the frequency with which participants thought about their participation in ClinSeq since enrollment. RESULTS: Results were consistent with the PAPM: those with higher genomics knowledge reported higher engagement (r = 0.13, P = 0.001) and those who were more engaged reported more frequent communication with their physicians (r = 0.28, P < 0.001) and family members (r = 0.35, P < 0.001) about ClinSeq. Characteristics of those with higher engagement included poorer overall health (r = -0.13, P = 0.002), greater seeking of health information (r = 0.16, P < 0.001), and more recent study enrollment (r = -0.21, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These data support the importance of internal engagement in communication related to genomic sequencing.Genet Med 19 1, 98-103.

Media Exposure and Genetic Literacy Skills to Evaluate Angelina Jolie's Decision for Prophylactic Mastectomy.

PURPOSE: To examine public preparedness to evaluate and respond to Angelina Jolie's well-publicized decision to have a prophylactic mastectomy. METHODS: A consumer panel (n = 1,008) completed an online survey in November 2013, reporting exposure to Jolie's story, confidence applying genomic knowledge to evaluate her decision, and ability to interpret provided genetic risk information (genetic literacy skills). Linear and logistic regressions tested mediating/moderating models of these factors in association with opinions regarding mastectomies. RESULTS: Confidence with genomics was associated with increased genetic literacy skills and increased media exposure, with a significant interaction between the two. Confidence was also associated with favoring mastectomies for women with BRCA mutations, mediating the relationship with media exposure. Respondents were more likely to form opinions about mastectomies if they had high genetic literacy skills. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that having higher genetic literacy skills may increase the public's ability to form opinions about clinical applications of genomic discovery. However, repeated media exposure to high-profile stories may artificially inflate confidence among those with low genetic literacy.

2013 Review and Update of the Genetic Counseling Practice Based Competencies by a Task Force of the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling.

The first practice based competencies (PBCs) for the field of genetic counseling were adopted by the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC), 1996. Since that time, there has been significant growth in established and new work settings (clinical and non-clinical) and changes in service delivery models and the roles of genetic counselors. These changes prompted the ABGC to appoint a PBC Task Force in 2011 to review the PBCs with respect to their current relevance and to revise and update them as necessary. There are four domains in the revised PBCs: (I) Genetics Expertise and Analysis (II) Interpersonal, Psychosocial and Counseling Skills (III) Education and (IV) Professional Development and Practice. There are 22 competencies, each clarified with learning objectives or samples of activities and skills; a glossary is included. New competencies were added that address genomics, genetic testing and genetic counselors' roles in risk assessment, education, supervision, conducting research and presenting research options to patients. With PBCs serving as the pre-defined abilities or outcomes of training, graduating genetic counselors will be well prepared to enter the field with a minimum level of skills and abilities. A description of the Task Force's work, key changes and the 2013 PBCs are presented herein.

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.

Participant use and communication of findings from exome sequencing: a mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: This study investigated how genome sequencing results affect health behaviors, affect, and communication. METHODS: We report on 29 participants who received a sequence result in the ClinSeq study, a cohort of well-educated, postreproductive volunteers. A mixed-methods design was used to explore respondents' use, communication, and perceived utility of results. RESULTS: Most participants (72%) shared their result with at least one health-care provider, and 31% reported subsequent changes in the health care they received. Participants scored high on the Positive Experiences subscale and low on the Distress subscale of a modified version of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment. The majority (93%) shared their result with at least one family member. Participants described deriving personal utility from their results. CONCLUSION: This article is the first to describe research participants' reactions to actionable sequencing results. Our findings suggest clinical and personal benefit from receiving sequencing results, both of which may contribute to improved health for the recipients. Given the participants' largely positive or neutral affective responses and disclosure of their results to physicians and relatives, health-care providers should redirect concern from the potential for distress and attend to motivating patients to follow their medical recommendations.Genet Med 18 6, 577-583.

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.

The Many Facets of Genetic Literacy: Assessing the Scalability of Multiple Measures for Broad Use in Survey Research.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how three dimensions of genetic literacy (familiarity, skills, and factual knowledge) fit the hierarchy of knowledge outlined in E.M. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations to better conceptualize lay understandings of genomics. METHODS: A consumer panel representing the US adult population (N = 1016) completed an electronic survey in November 2013. Adjusting for education, we used correlations, principle components analysis, Mokken Scale tests, and linear regressions to assess how scores on the three genetic literacy sub-dimensions fit an ordered scale. RESULTS: The three scores significantly loaded onto one factor, even when adjusting for education. Analyses revealed moderate strength in scaling (0.416, p<0.001) and a difficulty ordering that matched Rogers' hierarchy (knowledge more difficult than skills, followed by familiarity). Skills scores partially mediated the association between familiarity and knowledge with a significant indirect effect (0.241, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: We established an ordering in genetic literacy sub-dimensions such that familiarity with terminology precedes skills using information, which in turn precedes factual knowledge. This ordering is important to contextualizing previous findings, guiding measurement in future research, and identifying gaps in the understanding of genomics relevant to the demands of differing applications.

Characterizing Participants in the ClinSeq Genome Sequencing Cohort as Early Adopters of a New Health Technology.

Genome sequencing is a novel clinical tool that has the potential to identify genetic origins of disease. However, the complexities of this new technology are significant and little is known about its integration into clinical care, and its potential adoption by patients. Expectations of its promise for personalized medicine are high and it is important to properly match expectations to the realities of the test. The NIH ClinSeq cohort study pilots the integration of genome sequencing into clinical research and care to assess the technical, medical and socio-behavioral aspects of implementing this technology. Over 950 adults ages 45-65 have been enrolled and clinically phenotyped. As an initial study, we describe the personality traits of ClinSeq participants, and explore how these traits compare to those that characterize early adopters of other new technologies. Our analysis was conducted on responses from 630 members of the cohort who completed a baseline survey on health cognitions, affect, health-related behaviors and personality traits, prior to receipt of any genome sequencing results. The majority of participants were white (90.5%), had at least a college degree (86.5%), and had at least one biological child (74.6%). Members of this ClinSeq sample were found to be high in dispositional optimism and resilience. Their high SES paralleled that of other early adopters of new technology. These attributes may contribute to participants' expectations for favorable outcomes and willingness to take higher risks when compared to the general population. These characteristics may distinguish those who are most likely to pursue genome sequencing and be indicative of their psychological resources to manage returned results.

Translation and validation of a Spanish-language genetic health literacy screening tool.

OBJECTIVE: Literacy deficits and underutilization of medical services have been linked to health disparities among minorities, and this appears especially relevant for the Latino population. Given the increasing importance of genetics, assessment of genetic health literacy may direct future efforts to better serve this vulnerable population. The current study was designed to contribute to this area by translating and validating a Spanish-language genetic health literacy measure. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study involving an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Eligible individuals were Latinos between the ages of 18 and 75 residing in Maryland, who self-reported Spanish as their primary language, recruited through convenience sampling. The genetic health literacy measure components were adapted from existing English-language measures [Erby, Roter, Larson, & Cho's (2008) Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Genetics (REAL-G) and Hooker et al.'s (2014) Genetic Literacy and Comprehension]. An existing Spanish-language general health literacy measure was used to establish preliminary concurrent validity [Lee, Bender, Ruiz, & Cho's (2006) SAHLSA]. RESULTS: 116 individuals completed the assessment. The Spanish-language REAL-G (REAL-G-Sp) was found to correlate well with the SAHLSA (Pearson's r = .77, p < .01). A cut-off score of 59 (out of 62) distinguished low versus high genetic health literacy with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 71%, identifying 28% of participants as having inadequate genetic health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: The REAL-G-Sp was found to have preliminary concurrent validity with an existing health literacy measure in the Latino population residing in Maryland. Significant proportions of this population are predicted to have limitations in genetic health literacy, even when information is provided in Spanish.

Disparities in uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a randomized trial of telephone counseling.

PURPOSE: As 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 versus telephone-based genetic counseling. METHODS: Methods include multivariable logistic regression and interaction analyses. RESULTS: Of 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 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.96, 95% confidence interval (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; minority women receiving telephone counseling were least likely to complete testing. CONCLUSION: Evidence for logistical and communication-based explanations for this interaction is 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 telephone.Genet Med 17 6, 467-475.