Evolution of the Colored Eco-Genetic Relationship Map (CEGRM) for Assessing Social Functioning in Women in Hereditary Breast-Ovarian (HBOC) Families

The CEGRM was initially conceived as a simple, concise, visual representation of the social interaction domains of information, tangible services and emotional exchanges (Kenen, R., & Peters, J. (2001). J Genet Counsel, 10, 289–309). A blend of the genetic pedigree, genogram, and ecomap, the CEGRM was developed to facilitate contemporary genetic counseling goals. An exploratory pilot study of 20 subjects showed that it was feasible, comfortable and efficiently accomplished, and that the process was useful both for assessment and as an intervention with study participants (Peters, J. A., Kenen, R., Giusti, R., Loud, J., Weissman, N., & Greene, M. H. (2004). Am J Med Genet Part A, 130A, 258–264). Subsequently, we have extended the CEGRM to 150 women from hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) families; three different investigators have successfully administered this tool. The preliminary findings from the exploratory study were confirmed in the larger sample. Engaging in the interactive, insight-promoting CEGRM process provides a novel tool for assessing the social context of genetic testing, and helping high-risk women better understand and integrate genetic information into their personal and family identities, health beliefs, and decisions.     

Unpacking the Blockers: Understanding Perceptions and Social Constraints of Health Communication in Hereditary Breast Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) Susceptibility Families

Family communication is essential for accurate cancer risk assessment and counseling; family blockers play a role in this communication process. This qualitative analysis of social exchanges is an extension of earlier work characterizing those who are perceived by study participants as health information gatherers, disseminators, and blockers within families with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) susceptibility. Eighty-nine women, ages 23–56 years, enrolled in a Breast Imaging Study (BIS) and participated in a sub-study utilizing a social assessment tool known as the Colored Ecological Genetic Relational Map (CEGRM). Purposive sampling ensured that participants varied according to numbers of participating family members e.g., ranging from 1 to 6. Eighty-nine women from 42 families (1–8 relatives/family) participated. They collectively designated 65 blockers, both male and female. Situational factors, beliefs, attitudes and cultural traditions, privacy and protectiveness comprised perceived reasons for blocking intra-family health communications. Longitudinal data collected over 4 years showed families where blocking behavior was universally recognized and stable over time, as well as other families where blocking was less consistent. Self-blocking was observed among a significant minority of participating women. Blocking of health communications among family members with HBOC was variable, complex, and multifaceted. The reasons for blocking were heterogeneous; duration of the blocking appeared to depend on the reasons for blocking. Blocking often seemed to involve bi-directional feedback loops, in keeping with Lepore’s Social Constraints and Modulation Theory. Privacy and protectiveness predominated as explanations for long-term blocking.     

Essential Elements of Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment, Counseling, and Testing: Updated Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Updated from their original publication in 2004, these cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of counseling at-risk individuals through genetic cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Essential components include the intake, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing for an inherited cancer syndrome, informed consent, disclosure of genetic test results, and psychosocial assessment. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.     

The Client's Perspective of Genetic Counseling—A Grounded Theory Study

Previous studies of genetic counseling have mainly focused on outcomes defined by researchers or service providers, and have frequently related to changes in reproductive behavior and/or client knowledge. A longitudinal study of 43 families referred to a clinical genetic service was undertaken to ascertain client needs and expectations of the service, and to identify relevant outcomes from the clients' perspective. Semistructured interviews were conducted with each client, prior to and after genetic counseling. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using grounded theory. The need for certainty emerged as a powerful factor that motivated clients to pursue the genetic referral. The client's lay knowledge of the condition, satisfaction of the need for certainty, and the formation of a personalized relationship between the client and the genetics staff significantly influenced the central outcome, identified as a change in the client's psychological adaptation to the genetic condition in the family.     

“The Cancer Bond”: Exploring the Formation of Cancer Risk Perception in Families with Lynch Syndrome

This study explores the social context of hereditary cancer risk perception in three families, an African-American family, a Mexican-American family, and a Caucasian family, each with Lynch Syndrome documented by a mismatch repair gene mutation. Communication network assessments measured family communication about cancer experiences and genetic testing information among a total of 26 participants. Participant narratives were evaluated to gain insight into how family cancer experiences and genetic testing information have shaped perceptions of cancer risk. Analysis of communication networks indicated that some families discussed cancer experiences to a greater extent than genetic testing information, and vice-versa. Interviews elucidated that sharing both types of health information led participants to conceptualize linkages among a strong family history of cancer, genetic testing information, and cancer prevention strategies. Understanding how different types of family communication influence the formation of perceived hereditary disease risk may enhance efforts to tailor genetic counseling services for families.     

Family Communication in Inherited Cardiovascular Conditions in Ireland

Over 100,000 individuals living in Ireland carry a mutated gene for an inherited cardiac condition (ICC), most of which demonstrate an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance. First-degree relatives of individuals with these mutations are at a 50 % risk of being a carrier: disclosing genetic information to family members can be complex. This study explored how families living in Ireland communicate genetic information about ICCs and looked at the challenges of communicating information, factors that may affect communication and what influence this had on family relationships. Face to face interviews were conducted with nine participants using an approved topic guide and results analysed using thematic analysis. The participants disclosed that responsibility to future generations, gender, proximity and lack of contact all played a role in family communication. The media was cited as a source of information about genetic information and knowledge of genetic information tended to have a positive effect on families. Results from this study indicate that individuals are willing to inform family members, particularly when there are children and grandchildren at risk, and different strategies are utilised. Furthermore, understanding of genetics is partially regulated not only by their families, but by the way society handles information. Therefore, genetic health professionals should take into account the familial influence on individuals and their decision to attend genetic services, and also that of the media.     

Communication of Information about Genetic Risks: Putting Families at the Center

Genetic information is a family affair. With the expansion of genomic technologies, many new causal genes and variants have been established and the potential for molecular diagnoses increased, with implications not only for patients but also their relatives. The need for genetic counseling and intrafamilial circulation of information on genetic risks grew accordingly. Also, the amount and, particularly, the complexity of the information to convey multiplied. Sharing information about genetic risks with family members, however, has never been an easy matter and often becomes a source of personal and familial conflicts and distress. Ethical requisites generally prevent healthcare professionals from directly contacting their consultands' relatives (affected or still at risk), who often feel unsupported throughout that process. We discuss here the communication of genetic risks to family members. We first consider genomic testing as a basis for family‐centered health care, as opposed to a predominant focus on the individual. We reviewed the literature on sharing genetic risk information with family members, and the associated ethical issues for professionals. Some clinical cases are presented and discussed, and key issues for meeting the needs of individuals and families are addressed. We argue that genetic information is inextricably linked to the family and that communicating about genetic risks is a process grounded within the broader milieu of family relationships and functioning. We conclude for the need for a more family‐centered approach and interventions that can promote sensitive attitudes to the provision of genetic information to and within the family, as well as its inclusion in educational and training programmes for genetic healthcare professionals.     

Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions among Relatives of Women with Uninformative Negative <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1/2</Emphasis> Test Results: The Moderating Effect of the Amount of Shared Information

The most common result of BRCA1/2 mutation testing when performed in a family without a previously identified mutation is an uninformative negative test result. Women in these families may have an increased risk for breast cancer because of mutations in non-BRCA breast cancer predisposition genes, including moderate- or low-risk genes, or shared environmental factors. Genetic counselors often encourage counselees to share information with family members, however it is unclear how much information counselees share and the impact that shared information may have on accuracy of risk perception in family members. We evaluated 85 sisters and daughters of women who received uninformative negative BRCA1/2 results. We measured accuracy of risk perception using a latent variable model where accuracy was represented as the correlation between perceived risk (indicators = verbal and quantitative measures) and calculated risk (indicators = Claus and BRCAPRO). Participants who reported more information was shared with them by their sister or mother about her genetic counseling session had greater accuracy of risk perception (0.707, p?=?0.000) than those who reported little information was shared (0.326, p?=?0.003). However, counselees shared very little information; nearly 20 % of family members reported their sister or mother shared nothing with them about her genetic counseling. Family members were generally not aware of the existence of a genetic counseling summary letter. Our findings underscore the need for effective strategies that facilitate counselees to share information about their genetic counseling sessions. Such communication may help their relatives better understand their cancer risks and enhance risk appropriate cancer prevention.     

Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

These cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of identifying at-risk individuals through cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Genetic Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Key components include the intake (medical and family histories), psychosocial assessment (assessment of risk perception), cancer risk assessment (determination and communication of risk), molecular testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (regulations, informed consent, and counseling process), and follow-up considerations. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.     

A Relational Approach to Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Ethical issues arise for genetic counselors when a client fails to disclose a genetic diagnosis of hereditary disease to family: they must consider the rights of the individual client to privacy and confidentiality as well as the rights of the family to know their genetic risk. Although considerable work has addressed issues of non-disclosure from the client’s perspective, there is a lack of qualitative research into how genetic counselors address this issue in practice. In this study, a qualitative approach was taken to investigate whether genetic counselors in Australia use a relational approach to encourage the disclosure of genetic information from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) clients among family members; and if so, how they use it. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 genetic counselors from selected states across Australia. Data collection and analysis were guided by a basic iterative approach incorporating a hybrid methodology to thematic analysis. The findings provide indicative evidence of genetic counselors employing a relational approach in three escalating stages––covert, overt and authoritative––to encourage the disclosure of genetic information. The findings lend credence to the notion that genetic counselors envision a form of relational autonomy for their clients in the context of sharing genetic information, and they depart from individualistic conceptions of care/solely client-centered counseling when addressing the needs of other family members to know their genetic status.     

Facilitating Family Communication About Predictive Genetic Testing: Probands’ Perceptions

The responsibility of informing relatives that predictive genetic testing is available often falls to the proband. Support is required during this process, however the perceived utility of genetic counseling and other strategies to facilitate communication have not been explored. We investigated the experiences of 12 individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) in a semistructured telephone interview. Respondents informed their immediate family about the availability of genetic testing, however many more-distant relatives were not directly informed. Respondents were mostly satisfied with the way they told family members about testing and had mixed views about the usefulness of genetic counseling. Gender differences were observed, with most men expressing a need for guidance or support in communicating to relatives. Letters and booklets were thought to enhance the quality of information but the provision of further aids is unlikely to increase the number of relatives made aware of predictive testing by the proband.     

Parents' Experiences with Genetic Counseling After the Birth of a Baby with a Genetic Disorder: An Exploratory Study

Little is known about factors determining which families utilize genetic counseling services. We conducted semistructured interviews with parents of four children born with cystic fibrosis (CF) and ten with Down's syndrome (DS) to ascertain reasons for using, or not using, genetic counseling services in the state of Victoria, Australia. We also explored the usefulness of genetic counseling for the families who had experienced it, and the perceived role of genetic counseling. All mothers of children with CF see a genetic counselor as part of a structured education program following diagnosis through newborn screening. Information overload was identified by them as an important problem. There is no specific program for families of children with DS. Six of them had received genetic counseling and four had not, either because it was not specifically offered to them or because they did not pursue it in the context of misconceptions about its purpose. The timing of the offer of genetic counseling is important and needs to take into account parents' coping strategies after diagnosis. Several parents commented on the favorable aspects of counseling, including getting information they needed to deal with the diagnosis and relief of guilt. Better awareness of genetic counseling by referring physicians, and providing counseling at more than one visit, may contribute to a more effective service.     

Midwives’ Approach to Genetic Diseases and Genetic Counseling in Denizli, Turkey

The purpose of this study was to evaluate Denizli midwives’ self-reported knowledge of genetic diseases and genetic counseling. Data was collected on forms that obtained information about midwives approaches to basic genetics, genetic disorders, and genetic counseling (response rate = 70.1%). The highest response rate of midwives describing themselves as “knowledgeable” about basic genetic information was for mitosis and meiosis with 4.8%, about genetic disorders was for phenylketonuria with 61.1%, and about genetic counseling was for recommending ultrasonography during pregnancy with 98.1%. The source for basic genetics information for 56.4% of participants was in their school level classes. None of the midwives felt that they had sufficient knowledge about genetic counseling or screening and 76.4% would like to attend an educational course. Even though the midwives have recognized their knowledge deficit they occasionally give genetic counseling. As a result of this study a genetics course is planned for midwives so they can actively participate in the prevention and early diagnosis of genetic diseases.     

Family Communication and Genetic Counseling: The Case of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

In familial breast/ovarian cancer, the information that the proband is able to supply about other family members is of critical importance for genetic counseling. This frequently requires family communication. Forty-six women attending a cancer genetics clinic were interviewed as part of a longitudinal study. Nearly all reported affected maternal, rather than paternal relatives, which may indicate lack of awareness by women with paternal histories. There was also much more communication among female relatives. Mothers, where they were still alive, were key figures in supplying family information. Although the majority of the sample contacted at least one relative regarding counseling, most named a relative with whom they did not feel able to communicate on this subject. Probands balanced the perceived obligation of passing on information with that of not causing alarm. Communication, both obtaining and giving information, was impeded by adoption, divorce and remarriage, family rifts, and large age gaps between siblings.     

Decision-Making About Inherited Cancer Risk: Exploring Dimensions of Genetic Responsibility

Since genetic information has implications for family members, some choices about genetic risk may be influenced by perceptions of responsibility to relatives. Drawing upon 25 semi-structured interviews with test recipients in Canada, this study explored decisions about inherited breast-ovarian and colon cancer. Qualitative data analysis revealed the pervasive significance of genetic responsibility in test decisions. We highlight three dimensions of genetic responsibility: 1) to know about the self for self; 2) to know about the self for others; 3) to know about the self to oblige others to know. It is argued that these dimensions of genetic responsibility have implications for test decisions, family relationships and other family members’ desire to know (or not know) and to act (or not act) with respect to their own genetic risk. In particular, genetic responsibility may play out as a framing of a relative’s moral obligation to know their risk that could obviate any interest they might have in not knowing. We conclude that perceptions of responsibility to—and of−other family members be thoroughly explored in genetic counseling sessions.     

“I Don’t Want to Be an Ostrich”: Managing Mothers’ Uncertainty during BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling

Families who face genetic disease risk must learn how to grapple with complicated uncertainties about their health and future on a long-term basis. Women who undergo BRCA 1/2 genetic testing describe uncertainty related to personal risk as well as their loved ones’, particularly daughters’, risk. The genetic counseling setting is a prime opportunity for practitioners to help mothers manage uncertainty in the moment but also once they leave a session. Uncertainty Management Theory (UMT) helps to illuminate the various types of uncertainty women encounter and the important role of communication in uncertainty management. Informed by UMT, we conducted a thematic analysis of 16 genetic counseling sessions between practitioners and mothers at risk for, or carriers of, a BRCA1/2 mutation. Five themes emerged that represent communication strategies used to manage uncertainty: 1) addresses myths, misunderstandings, or misconceptions; 2) introduces uncertainty related to science; 3) encourages information seeking or sharing about family medical history; 4) reaffirms or validates previous behavior or decisions; and 5) minimizes the probability of personal risk or family members’ risk. Findings illustrate the critical role of genetic counseling for families in managing emotionally challenging risk-related uncertainty. The analysis may prove beneficial to not only genetic counseling practice but generations of families at high risk for cancer who must learn strategic approaches to managing a complex web of uncertainty that can challenge them for a lifetime.     

The role of beneficence in clinical genetics: Non-directive counseling reconsidered

The popular view of non-directive genetic counseling limits the counselor's role to providing information to clients and assisting families in making decisions in a morally neutral fashion. This view of non-directive genetic counseling is shown to be incomplete. A fuller understanding of what it means to respect autonomy shows that merely respecting client choices does not exhaust the duty. Moreover, the genetic counselor/client relationship should also be governed by the counselor's commitment to the principle of beneficience. When non-directive counseling is reexamined in light of both these principles, it becomes clear that there are cases in which counselors should attempt to persuade clients to reconsider their decisions. Such attempts are consistent with non-directive counseling because, while respecting the clients' decision-making authority, they insure that clients act with full knowledge of the moral consequences of their decisions.     

Suicide prevention in the genetic counseling context

Utilizing a case report, this paper explores psychosocial aspects of suicidal intent in a woman seeking prenatal diagnosis. Using knowledge and practice of appropriate assessment, referral, and intervention procedures, the therapy team of genetic counselor and psychotherapist facilitated successful identification and management of this potentially suicidal client. The main counseling goals for the genetic counselor are to assess the situation adequately, decrease the immediate danger, and, with supervision and/or consultation, stabilize the seriously suicidal person until that individual can be triaged to mental health or medical professionals for treatment. The prevalence of suicide issues in genetic counseling contexts is unknown and reports mentioning suicidal ideation unusual in the genetic counseling literature. Is this reported case a rarity among genetic counseling referrals? Systematically collected information on the prevalence and resolution of suicidal issues in genetic counseling contexts would be helpful for those setting curricula for genetic counseling training programs, standards for professional certification exams, and policy and procedures manuals for clinical units.     

Risk Assessment and Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

These cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial and ethical implications of identifying at-risk individuals for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) through cancer risk assessment, with or without genetic susceptibility testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment as well as the professional expertise of genetic counselors with significant experience in education and counseling regarding hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Critical components of the process include the ascertainment of medical and family histories, determination and communication of cancer risk, assessment of risk perception, education regarding the genetics of HBOC, discussion of molecular testing for HBOC if appropriate (including benefits, risks and limitations) and any necessary follow-up. These recommendations do not dictate an exclusive course of management or guarantee a specific outcome. Moreover, they do not replace the professional judgment of a health care provider based on the clinical situation of a client.