An Investigation of Genetic Counselors' Discussions of Genetic Discrimination with Cancer Risk Patients

Twenty-five genetic counselors who see familial cancer risk patients were interviewed about their definitions of genetic discrimination, perceptions of patient risk for discrimination, frequency and type of discrimination experienced by their patients, sources of information about discrimination, and what they tell patients about genetic discrimination. There was variability in participant definitions and content of discussions of genetic discrimination. Although 82% regarded risk to be low to theoretical, 40% reported possible instances of genetic discrimination, including insurance companies requiring results to cover procedures, denial of life/health insurance, social discrimination, and employment discrimination. Ninety-six percent of the sample reported always or almost always discussing genetic discrimination, and one or more of the following: insurance discrimination risks, protective legislation, no known cases positively documenting discrimination, strategies to avoid discrimination, and uncertainty of protective measures. The majority use current literature and research as information sources. Practice, policy, and research implications are discussed.     

Family Physicians’ Awareness and Knowledge of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA)

Historically, physicians have expressed concern about their patients’ risk of genetic discrimination, which has acted as a barrier to uptake of genetic services. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is intended to protect patients against employer and health insurance discrimination. Physicians’ awareness and knowledge of GINA has yet to be evaluated. In 2009, we mailed surveys to 1500 randomly selected members of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Questions measured physicians’ current knowledge of GINA and their level of concern for genetic discrimination. In total, 401 physicians completed the survey (response rate 26.9%). Approximately half (54.5%) of physicians had no awareness of GINA. Of physicians who reported basic knowledge of GINA, the majority were aware of the protections offered for group health insurance (92.7%), private health insurance (82.9%), and employment (70.7%). Fewer physicians were aware of GINA’s limitations regarding life insurance (53.7%) and long-term care insurance (58.8%). Physicians demonstrated highest levels of concern for health insurance, life insurance, and long-term care insurance discrimination, with less concern for employer and family/social discrimination. Level of concern for the risk of genetic discrimination did not correlate significantly with awareness of GINA. Approximately 17 months after GINA was signed into federal law, physicians’ knowledge remained limited regarding the existence of this legislation and relevant details. Physicians who are aware of GINA continue to have significant concerns regarding the risk of genetic discrimination. This study reveals the need to further educate physicians about the existence of GINA and the protections offered.     

Attitudes of Genetic Counselors Towards Genetic Susceptibility Testing in Children

Genetic susceptibility research and testing is leading to an era of personalized medicine. Genetic counselors act as liaisons between the medical genetics community and the public. Understanding the opinions of genetic counselors will be important in developing testing guidelines. Attitudes towards genetic susceptibility testing in children were assessed for 216 NSGC members. Genetic counselors were likely to support testing if the results would determine: disease progression or prognosis, likelihood of survival after a specific treatment, or risk for an adverse drug reaction. Genetic counselors were unlikely to support testing to determine susceptibility to later disease development or in the absence of available intervention. There was a strong positive correlation between attitudes associated with desire to test their own child, if at risk and their support for genetic testing in any child at risk. Respondents strongly favored parent/guardian and child’s rights over doctor or insurance rights. They indicated assent should be obtained prior to testing, when appropriate, and that a copy of results should be kept in a permanent medical record. Respondents expressed concerns about insurance discrimination, testing in the absence of medical necessity, and taking away a child’s autonomy.     

Managing Variant Interpretation Discrepancies in Hereditary Cancer: Clinical Practice,Concerns, and Desired Resources

Variant interpretation is a complex process, and classification may vary between sources. This study aimed to determine the practice of cancer genetic counselors regarding discrepancies in variant interpretation and to identify concerns when counseling these discrepancies. An electronic survey was sent to genetic counselors in the NSGC Cancer Special Interest Group. The vast majority of counselors (93%) had seen a variant interpretation discrepancy in practice. A large majority (96%) of respondents indicated that they conducted their own research on reported variants. Most respondents cited variant databases as the most common resource utilized in researching variants. Approximately 33% of counselors spent 45 min or more of extra time researching a discrepancy compared to researching a variant with a single classification. When asked how they approached counseling sessions involving variant interpretation discrepancies, the free responses emphasized that counselors considered family history, clinical information, and psychosocial concerns, showing that genetic counselors tailored the session to each individual. Discrepancies in variant interpretation are an ongoing concern for clinical cancer genetic counselors, as demonstrated by the fact that counselors desired further resources to aid in addressing these discrepancies, including a centralized database (89%), guidelines from a major organization (88%), continuing education about the issue (74%), and functional studies (58%). Additionally, most respondents reported that the ideal database would be owned by a non-profit organization (59%) and obtain information directly from laboratories (91%). This investigation was the first to address these discrepancies from a clinical point of view. The study demonstrates that discrepancies in variant interpretation are a concern for clinical cancer genetic counselors and outlines the need for additional support.     

Lifestyle Risk Factors Among People Who Have Had Cancer Genetic Testing

Hereditary cancer genetic counseling often focuses on medically intensive risk-reduction strategies, like imaging and risk-reducing surgeries. Lifestyle factors also influence cancer risk, but health behavior counseling is not common in genetic counseling. Information about typical lifestyle risk factors among patients seeking hereditary cancer risk is sparse. The current study describes cancer risk-relevant lifestyle factors for people who have had cancer genetic testing. Data came from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 4) collected in 2013. Analytic variables represented American Cancer Society nutrition and physical activity guidelines. Lifestyle factors were assessed for people who had undergone testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, or Lynch Syndrome genes. Among 3016 HINTS respondents, 135 had cancer genetic testing. Of these, 58 % were overweight or obese. Eighteen percent reported no moderate-intensity physical activity. Average sedentary screen-time was 3.4 h (SE = 0.472) daily. Sixty-three percent drank non-diet soda, and 23 % of these people drank soda every day. Between 18 and 36 % consumed less than 2 ½ cups fruits/vegetables daily. Twenty-four percent were current smokers. Lifestyle risk factors were not different between people who had genetic testing and those who had not. In conclusion, most people who had genetic testing for cancer susceptibility have at least one modifiable risk factor. Genetic counselors have opportunities to impact a counselee’s cancer risk not only through risk-tailored medical procedures, but also through lifestyle modification recommendations. Results of the current study may foster a broader discussion of genetic counselors’ roles in healthy lifestyle education.     

Reproductive Endocrinologists’ Utilization of Genetic Counselors for Oncofertility and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Treatment of <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1/2</Emphasis> Mutation Carriers

Genetic counselors believe fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) discussions to be a part of their role when counseling BRCA1/2 mutation-positive patients. This study is the first to explore reproductive endocrinologists’ (REI) practices and attitudes regarding involvement of genetic counselors in the care of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers seeking fertility preservation and PGD. A survey was mailed to 1000 REIs from Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility (SREI), an American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) affiliate group. A 14.5 % response rate was achieved; data was analyzed using SPSS software. The majority of participating REIs were found to recommend genetic counseling to cancer patients considering fertility preservation (82 %) and consult with a genetic counselor regarding PGD for hereditary cancer syndromes (92 %). Additionally, REIs consult genetic counselors regarding PGD patient counseling (88 %), genetic testing (78 %), and general genetics questions (66 %). Two areas genetic counselors may further aid REIs are: elicitation of family history, which is useful to determine fertility preservation and PGD intervention timing (32 % of REIs utilize a cancer family history to determine intervention timing); and, interpretation of variants of uncertain significance (VOUS) as cancer panel genetic testing becomes more common (36 % of REIs are unfamiliar with VOUS). Given our findings, the Oncofertility Consortium® created an online resource for genetic counselors focused on fertility preservation education and communication strategies.     

Factors Influencing Clinical Follow-Up for Individuals with a Personal History of Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer and Previous Uninformative <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA2</Emphasis> Testing

Genetic testing for inherited cancer risk has recently improved through the advent of multi-gene panels and the addition of deletion and duplication analysis of the BRCA genes. The primary aim of this study was to determine which factors influence the intent of individuals with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer and negative or uncertain BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing to return to a hereditary cancer program for additional genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing. Surveys were sent to 1197 individuals and 257 were returned. Of those participants who were planning to return to clinic, most cited having family members who could benefit from the test result as the primary motivation to return. Many participants who were not planning to return to clinic cited the cost of testing as a barrier to return. Cost of testing and concerns about insurance coverage were the most commonly cited barriers for the group of participants who were undecided about returning to clinic. Results from this study may be used to guide re-contact efforts by clinicians to increase patient uptake to return to clinic for up-to-date genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing.     

The Experience of Genetic Counselors Working with Patients Facing the Decision of Pregnancy Termination after 24 Weeks Gestation

Prenatal genetic counselors are health care professionals who counsel women making reproductive decisions which include decisions such as terminating pregnancies due to fetal anomalies. Little is known about the experiences and practices of prenatal genetic counselors working with women who have the option of termination after 24 weeks gestation. In this national survey of 168 genetic counselors who have practiced prenatal genetic counseling, we asked about their general practice patterns, including indications for which termination is offered and types of abortion care services that are coordinated by genetic counselors. We report respondents’ self-assessments of level of understanding of federal abortion law and abortion procedures. Seventy-six percent of respondents have offered and counseled on termination after 24 weeks and 93% of respondents believe it is the responsibility of the counselor to discuss this option with patients. However, one-third report that they have some or no understanding of the procedures and three-quarters report that they have some or no understanding of federal abortion law. The results of this study provide insight into knowledge and experiences of genetic counselors working with these patients, allowing for improved genetic counselor training and continuing education to provide better guidance and develop more effective means of assisting patients.     

Telephoned BRCA1/2 Genetic Test Results: Prevalence, Practice, and Patient Satisfaction

While the traditional model of genetic evaluation for breast cancer risk recommended face-to-face disclosure of genetic testing results, BRCA1/2 testing results are increasingly provided by telephone. The few existing studies on telephone genetic counseling provide conflicting results about its desirability and efficacy. The current study aimed to (1) Estimate the prevalence among genetic counselors of providing BRCA1/2 genetic test results by phone (2) Assess patient satisfaction with results delivered by telephone versus in-person. A survey was sent to members of the Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group via the NSGC listserve and was completed by 107 individuals. Additionally, 137 patients who had received BRCA genetic testing results either by phone or in-person at UNC Chapel Hill Cancer Genetics Clinic were surveyed regarding satisfaction with the mode of their BRCA1/2 results delivery. The genetic counseling survey revealed that the majority of responding counselors (92.5%) had delivered BRCA1/2 genetic test results by telephone. Patients having received results either in person or by phone reported no difference in satisfaction. Most patients chose to receive results by phone and those given a choice of delivery mode reported significantly higher satisfaction than those who did not have a choice. Those who waited less time to receive results once they knew they were ready also reported higher satisfaction. This study found supportive results for the routine provision of BRCA1/2 genetic test results by telephone. Results suggest that test results should be delivered as swiftly as possible once available and that offering patients a choice of how to receive results is desirable. These are especially important issues as genetic testing becomes more commonplace in medicine.     

Pediatric and Adult Recommendations Vary for Sibling Testing in Cystic Fibrosis

Four to 5 % of cystic fibrosis (CF) patients are diagnosed as adults and often have subtler symptoms. Their siblings are at genetic risk to also have a subtler disease state. Diagnostic testing is recommended for siblings of newly diagnosed infants, but recommendations are less clear for later diagnoses. This study explored sibling testing recommendations in pediatric and adult practice using a survey that was emailed to CF clinicians. There were 58 respondents. Results revealed that 82.5% of pediatric and 36.4% of adult care respondents reported always recommending diagnostic testing for siblings of a newly diagnosed patient. In adult care, another 33.3% reported recommending diagnostic testing if the sibling has symptoms. In pediatric care, whether the sibling had newborn screening was most influential. Most pediatric respondents prefer the sweat chloride test, while 40% in adult practice prefer familial mutation analysis. Perceived barriers included cost, insurance coverage and logistical concerns in both settings, parental emotional state in pediatrics, and concern making recommendations for someone who is not the patient in adult care. Genetic counselors may be able to meet familial needs in CF care, including sibling testing. Many newly diagnosed patients/families do not see a genetic counselor, especially in adult care. These data reveal opportunities for practice guidelines and standardization.     

Assessment of the Use and Feasibility of Video to Supplement the Genetic Counseling Process: A Cancer Genetic Counseling Perspective

Cancer genetic counselors use a variety of teaching modalities for patient education. This survey of cancer genetic counselors assessed their use of educational videos and their recommendations for content of future videos. Thirty percent of respondents use videos for patient education. Cited benefits included reinforcement of information for clients and increased counselor efficiency. Of the 70% who do not use videos, predominant barriers included the perceived lack of an appropriate video, lack of space and/or equipment, and concern that videos are impersonal. Most respondents desired a video that is representative of the genetic counseling session, but emphasized the importance of using broad information. Content considered critical included the pros and cons of genetic testing, associated psychosocial implications, and genetic discrimination. The results of this exploratory study provide data relevant for the development of a cancer genetics video for patient education, and suggestions are made based on aspects of information processing and communication theories.     

Professional preparation of individuals who provide genetic counseling services

An unprecedented increase has occurred in demand for genetic counseling services during the current decade. This study examined the complex issue of who currently provides genetic counseling services and the professional preparation of these personnel. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 325 genetic counseling professionals in the southeastern United States who were members of the Southeast Regional Genetics Group (SERGG), National Society of Genetic Counselors, or American Society of Human Genetics States; 204 completed the questionnaire (63%). Seventy percent of respondents were female and 30% were male. Thirty percent of respondents held MD degrees; nine physicians held PhD degrees. Most physicians were male. Thirty-two percent of respondents held master's degrees in genetic counseling; five counselors held PhD degrees. Twenty-three percent of respondents were nurses; eight nurses held master's degrees. Three percent of respondents were social workers. Individuals with other degrees, such as an associate of science in medical technology and a doctoral degree in education, also provided genetic counseling. Genetic counseling typically involved a team effort, consisting mainly of physicians and genetic counselors. Most respondents reported college coursework in human genetics, supervised training, and seminar/workshop training. Thirty percent reported college coursework in counseling techniques, supervised training, and seminar/workshop training. Policy recommendations are offered concerning professional preparation of genetic counselors.     

Perceptions of Licensure: A Survey of Michigan Genetic Counselors

This study by the Michigan Genetic Counselor Licensure Committee is the first known published documentation of genetic counselors’ beliefs and attitudes about licensure. The response rate from genetic counselors in Michigan was 66% (41/62). Ninety-five percent of respondents were supportive of licensure. Respondents believed licensure would legitimize genetic counseling as a distinct allied healthcare profession (97.5%), increase the public’s protection (75%), and allow genetic counselors to practice independently (67%). While 45% felt licensure would increase counselor involvement in lawsuits, this did not impact licensure support (p?=?0.744). Opinions were split regarding physician supervision and ordering tests. Even though 28% favored physician supervision, there was overwhelming support for genetic counselors performing some components of genetic testing (95%) and ordering some types of genetic tests (82%) independent of a physician. Use of this survey may be helpful in other states to assess genetic counselors’ interest in licensure and for drafting legislation.     

The Changing Age of Individuals Seeking Presymptomatic Genetic Testing for Huntington Disease

Huntington disease (HD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Presymptomatic genetic testing allows at-risk individuals to clarify their risk status. Understanding the characteristics and motivations of individuals seeking HD presymptomatic genetic testing better equips genetic counselors and other healthcare professionals to provide comprehensive and personalized care. The aims of this study were to (1) determine whether the average age when individuals seek presymptomatic HD genetic testing has decreased over time, (2) assess motivations for seeking testing, (3) explore whether there is a relationship between age and motivations, and (4) explore genetic counselors’ perceptions of the shift in age. Data from the US HD testing centers (N?=?4) were analyzed. A small but statistically significant decrease in age of individuals seeking presymptomatic testing was observed (p?=?0.045). HD community members (N?=?77) were surveyed regarding presymptomatic testing motivations. Younger individuals were more likely than older individuals to cite “To learn whether or not you would develop HD” and “To make choices about further education or a career” compared to older individuals (p?<?0.05). Conversely, older individuals more frequently cited “To give children a better idea of their risk” (p?<?0.002). Sixteen percent of genetic counselors surveyed (6/37) perceived a change in age of testing. All of these respondents had provided HD testing for ten or more years and anecdotally believed the age at testing has decreased over time. Study results help providers personalize counseling based on patient’s age and serve as a starting point for more research into the relationship between age at testing and motivations for testing.     

Development of a Streamlined Work Flow for Handling Patients’ Genetic Testing Insurance Authorizations

Obtaining genetic testing insurance authorizations for patients is a complex, time-involved process often requiring genetic counselor (GC) and physician involvement. In an effort to mitigate this complexity and meet the increasing number of genetic testing insurance authorization requests, GCs formed a novel partnership with an industrial engineer (IE) and a patient services associate (PSA) to develop a streamlined work flow. Eight genetics clinics and five specialty clinics at the University of Michigan were surveyed to obtain benchmarking data. Tasks needed for genetic testing insurance authorization were outlined and time-saving work flow changes were introduced including 1) creation of an Excel password-protected shared database between GCs and PSAs, used for initiating insurance authorization requests, tracking and follow-up 2) instituting the PSAs sending GCs a pre-clinic email noting each patients’ genetic testing insurance coverage 3) inclusion of test medical necessity documentation in the clinic visit summary note instead of writing a separate insurance letter and 4) PSAs development of a manual with insurance providers and genetic testing laboratories information. These work flow changes made it more efficient to request and track genetic testing insurance authorizations for patients, enhanced GCs and PSAs communication, and reduced tasks done by clinicians.     

When the Topic is You: Genetic Counselor Responses to Prenatal Patients’ Requests for Self-Disclosure

A limited amount of research indicates patient requests play a major role in genetic counselors’ self-disclosure decisions and that disclosure and non-disclosure responses to patient requests may differentially affect genetic counseling processes. Studies further suggest patient requests may be more common in prenatal settings, particularly when counselors are pregnant. Empirical evidence is limited however, concerning the nature of patient requests. This study explored genetic counselors’ experiences of prenatal patients’ requests for self-disclosure. Four major research questions were: (1) What types of questions do prenatal patients ask that invite self-disclosure?; (2) Do pregnant genetic counselors have unique experiences with prenatal patient disclosure requests?; (3) How do genetic counselors typically respond to disclosure requests?; and (4) What strategies are effective and ineffective in responding to disclosure requests? One hundred seventy-six genetic counselors completed an online survey and 40 also participated in telephone interviews. Inductive analysis of 21 interviews revealed patient questions vary, although questions about counselor demographics are most common, and patients are more likely to ask pregnant counselors questions about their personal pregnancy decisions. Participants reported greater discomfort with self-disclosure requests during pregnancy, yet also disclosing more frequently during pregnancy. Counselor responses included personal self-disclosure, professional self-disclosure, redirection, and declining to disclose. Factors perceived as influencing disclosure included: topic, patient motivations, timing of request, quality of counseling relationship, patient characteristics, and ethical/legal responsibilities. Disclosure practices changed over time for most counselors. Additional findings, practice implications, and research recommendations are discussed.     

Changes in Specialists’ Perspectives on Cancer Genetic Testing,Prophylactic Surgery and Insurance Discrimination: Then and Now

We surveyed cancer genetics specialists in 1998 to learn what they would do if at 50 % risk to carry a BRCA or Lynch syndrome mutation. We chose to repeat our study 14 years later, to examine how perspectives have changed with the extensive data now available. In July 2012 we surveyed the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Cancer Special Interest Group via an internet based survey. We found statistically significant increases in the percentage of specialists who: would undergo BRCA testing (p?=?0.0006), opt for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (p =0.0001), opt for prophylactic removal of their uterus and ovaries for Lynch syndrome (p =0.0057 and P?=?0.0090, respectively), and bill testing to insurance (p >0.0001). There were also statistically significant decreases in the percentage of participants who would have their colon removed for Lynch syndrome (p?=?0.0002) and use an alias when pursuing testing (p?>?0.0001). Over the past 14 years there has been a major change in perspective amongst cancer genetic specialists regarding genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination.     

Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome: Comparison of Screening Practices in the UK and USA

Prenatal testing for Down Syndrome is a topic covered in every genetic counselor’s training as it constitutes the main workload of genetic counselors in prenatal settings. Most Western countries nowadays offer some type of testing for Down Syndrome. However, practices vary according to country with regards to what tests are offered, insurance coverage and the legal situation concerning the option of terminating an affected pregnancy. In view of the growing interest in international genetic counseling issues, this article aims to compare prenatal testing practices in two English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A case will be presented to highlight some of the differences in practice. The topic underlines important implications for genetic counseling practice, such as patients’ understanding of testing practices, risk perception, counseling provision and impact of prenatal testing results.     

Next Generation Sequencing is the Impetus for the Next Generation of Laboratory-Based Genetic Counselors

Next generation sequencing (NGS) is dramatically increasing the number of clinically available genetic tests and thus the number of patients in which such testing may be indicated. The complex nature and volume of the reported results requires professional interpretation of the testing in order to translate and synthesize the meaning and potential benefit to patients, and genetic counselors are uniquely suited to provide this service. The increased need for genetic counselors in this role, coupled with the time required and a limited number of trained and available counselors presents a challenge to current models for making genetic testing available to patients and their healthcare providers effectively and efficiently. The employment of genetic counselors at genetic/genomic laboratories is one model to expand the resources for providing this service. In this article, we briefly review the advent of NGS and its clinical applications, examine the core skills of genetic counselors and delineate the expanding roles and responsibilities of laboratory-based genetic counselors. We also propose changes to the genetic counseling training program curriculum to account for the increasing opportunities for genetic counselors to contribute and thrive within genetic testing laboratories.