Search

This study investigated reasons for lower-than-expected uptake of germline genetic testing compared to national guidelines amongst adult patients with cancer, self-reporting clinician recommendation for genetic testing. Cross-sectional survey of 596 patients with a personal history of cancer, responded about their cancer diagnosis, physician recommendation for and status of genetic testing and demographics. Adjusting for potential confounding factors (cancer type, education, income and insurance status) male sex significantly decreased odds of receiving a clinical recommendation for genetic testing (Odds Ratio: 0.06; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.04–0.10). Females, with a diagnosis of breast cancer, were more likely to receive a recommendation than other cancer types (64.8% vs. 90.9%, p < 0.001). Participants who received a physician recommendation were significantly more likely to receive genetic testing (p < 0.001). Clinician recommendation is an important driver of genetic testing, necessitating efforts to increase clinician recommendations, particularly for males and patients with cancers other than breast.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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).

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.