Search

Diabetes mellitus is a group of diseases characterized by hyperglycemia and its consequences, affecting over 34 million individuals in the United States and 422 million worldwide. While most diabetes is polygenic and is classified as type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational diabetes (GDM), at least 0.4% of all diabetes is monogenic in nature. Correct diagnosis of monogenic diabetes has important implications for glycemic management and genetic counseling. We provide this Practice Resource to familiarize the genetic counseling community with (1) the existence of monogenic diabetes, (2) how it differs from more common polygenic/complex diabetes types, (3) the advantage of a correct diagnosis, and (4) guidance for identifying, counseling, and testing patients and families with suspected monogenic diabetes. This document is intended for genetic counselors and other healthcare professionals providing clinical services in any setting, with the goal of maximizing the likelihood of a correct diagnosis of monogenic diabetes and access to related care., (© 2023 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Context: This systematic review aims to (1) characterize strategies used to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome outside of oncology and clinical genetic settings, (2) describe the extent to which these strategies have extended the reach of genetic services to underserved target populations, and (3) summarize indicators of the potential scalability of these strategies., Evidence Acquisition: Investigators searched PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for manuscripts published from October 2005 to August 2019. Eligible manuscripts were those published in English, those that described strategies to identify those at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome, those implemented outside of an oncology or genetic specialty clinic, and those that included measures of cancer genetic services uptake. This study assessed strategies used to increase the reach of genetic risk screening and counseling services. Each study was evaluated using the 16-item quality assessment tool, and results were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines., Evidence Synthesis: Of the 16 eligible studies, 11 were conducted in clinical settings and 5 in public health settings. Regardless of setting, most (63%, 10/16) used brief screening tools to identify people with a family history suggestive of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome. When reported, genetic risk screening reach (range =11%-100%) and genetic counseling reach (range =11%-100%) varied widely across studies. Strategies implemented in public health settings appeared to be more successful (median counseling reach=65%) than those implemented in clinical settings (median counseling reach=26%). Most studies did not describe fundamental components relevant for broad scalability., Conclusions: Efforts to expand cancer genomic services are limited outside of traditional oncology and genetic clinics. This is a missed opportunity because evidence thus far suggests that these efforts can be successful in expanding the reach of genetic services with the potential to reduce health inequities in access. This review highlights the need for accelerating research that applies evidence-based implementation strategies and frameworks along with process evaluation to understand barriers and facilitators to scalability of strategies with high reach., (Copyright © 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

As in many other countries, the field of genetic counseling is in its initial stages of development in India, where there are efforts to streamline the profession and to implement graduate-level training programs. We implemented an elective course on genetic counseling at the undergraduate level in a private university in India to assess students' interest, to provide early exposure for students interested in pursuing the career, and to aid recruitment. To assess satisfaction with the course and recruitment outcomes, we sent a course evaluation survey to 332 students and received 134 responses. Familiarity with genetic counseling topics increased significantly after completing the course. Of the 42 respondents who reported they were planning to pursue formal genetic counseling training, 21% (n = 9/42) became interested in the profession as a result of taking this course. Survey respondents who were prospective applicants to genetic counseling training programs referred mostly to the websites of the National Society of Genetic Counselors and the American Board of Genetic Counseling for information on genetic counseling and training. Barriers to entry into the field included lack of shadowing opportunities, inadequate coursework, and limited opportunities to interact with practicing genetic counselors. Respondents stated that additional case studies as well as observation of patient interactions would elucidate the role of a genetic counselor and help define the scope of the practice in India and other countries. Overall, genetic counseling education at the undergraduate level is a scalable way to improve understanding of genetic counseling topics, increase professional interest in the field, and support workforce development., (© 2020 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Background: The IGNITE network funds six genomic medicine projects. Though interventions varied, we hypothesized that synergies across projects could be leveraged to better understand the participant experiences with genomic medicine interventions. Therefore, we performed cross-network analyses to identify associations between participant demographics and attitudes toward the intervention (attitude), plan to share results (share), and quality of life (QOL)., Methods: Data collection for demographics, attitude, share, and QOL surveys were standardized across projects. Recruitment and survey administration varied by each project's protocol., Results: Participants (N = 6,817) were 67.2% (N = 4,584) female, and 37.4% (N = 3,544) were minority. Mean age = 54.0 (sd 14.a). Younger participants were as follows: (1) more positive in attitude pre-intervention (1.15-fold decrease/10-year age increase (OR)) and more negative after (1.14-fold increase OR); (2) higher in QOL pre-intervention (1.07-fold increase OR) and postintervention; (3) more likely to share results (1.12-fold increase OR). Race was significant when sharing results (white participants increased OR = 1.88), but not for change in QOL pre-postintervention or attitude., Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and identified a few key themes which are as follows: age was consistently significant across the three outcomes, whereas race had less of an impact than expected. However, these are only associations and thus warrant further study., (© 2019 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The profession of genetic counseling (also called genetic counselling in many countries) began nearly 50 years ago in the United States, and has grown internationally in the past 30 years. While there have been many papers describing the profession of genetic counseling in individual countries or regions, data remains incomplete and has been published in diverse journals with limited access. As a result of the 2016 Transnational Alliance of Genetic Counseling (TAGC) conference in Barcelona, Spain, and the 2017 World Congress of Genetic Counselling in the UK, we endeavor to describe as fully as possible the global state of genetic counseling as a profession. We estimate that in 2018 there are nearly 7000 genetic counselors with the profession established or developing in no less than 28 countries.

Newborn screening (NBS) is a public health program whose aim is to identify infants who will be clinically affected with a serious metabolic, genetic, or endocrine disorder; however, the technology utilized by many NBS programs also detects infants who are heterozygous carriers for autosomal recessive conditions. Discussion surrounding disclosure of these incidental carrier findings remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to assess genetic counselors' attitudes about disclosure of carrier status results generated by NBS and to gather data on their experiences with incidental carrier findings. An electronic survey was distributed to genetic counselors of all specialties via the NSGC listserv, and a total of 235 survey responses were analyzed. Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS v24, and qualitative data were manually analyzed for thematic analysis. Results show that the counselor participants were overall in favor of routine disclosure. Those with experience in NBS were much more likely to strongly agree with one or more reasons for disclosure (p < 0.001), whereas those with five or fewer years of experience were more likely to strongly agree with one or more reasons for non-disclosure (p = 0.031). Qualitative analysis identified key motivating factors for disclosure, including helping parents to understand a positive screen, parents may otherwise be unaware of reproductive risk and they may not otherwise have access to this information, and, while genetic testing is inherently a complex and ambiguous process, this does not justify non-disclosure. The main motivating factor for non-disclosure was the need for better counseling and informed consent. The data suggest that implementation of an "opt-in/out" policy for parents to decide whether or not to receive incidental findings would be beneficial. The results of this study support the continued disclosure of incidental carrier findings; however, additional research is necessary to further determine and implement the most effective disclosure practices.

The objective of this study was to assess the genetics knowledge of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), and to explore their attitudes on genetic testing and interest in genetic counseling. We surveyed 158 patients from the University of Maryland Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Center. Patients averaged a score of 63% on general genetics knowledge and 73% on PD genetics knowledge. Participants had an overall positive attitude toward genetic testing: 80% believed that the use of genetic tests among people should be promoted, and 83% would undertake genetic test for PD if it was available. Patients reported a high interest to discuss the benefits, risks, and impacts of genetic testing for PD (mean sum score = 26, range = 9-35), and 43% patients expressed interest in meeting with a genetic counselor. Multivariate regression analysis showed that patients who had more positive attitudes toward genetic testing for PD were more interested in meeting with a genetic counselor (β = 0.6, p < 0.001). This study is the first to demonstrate an interest in genetic counseling among patients with PD. Our findings demonstrate a new niche for genetic counselors to support patients in clarifying gaps or misconceptions in knowledge about PD genetics as well as the possible risks, benefits, and limitations of genetic testing.

Objectives: To determine the impact of genetic counselor (GC) communication on cognitive and emotional processing of Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk information during discussions with patients with clinical diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment and their companion., Methods: 79 recordings and transcripts of AD risk disclosure sessions collected as part of the fourth REVEAL Trial were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) and the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC). Multilevel analyses were used to determine the association between GCs' use of communication facilitation strategies and patient and companion use of words indicative of cognitive and emotional processing., Results: GC used somewhat more cognitive (14%) than emotional (10%) facilitation strategies. Both patients and companions used more words indicative of cognitive (18% and 17%) than emotional (6% and 5%) processing. GC use of facilitative strategies and patient and companion use of cognitive and emotional processing words were significantly associated in both unadjusted and adjusted models (all p-values<0.01)., Conclusions: GCs' use of facilitative strategies assist in cognitive and emotional processing in a way that may be linked to therapeutic benefit., Practice Implications: These findings highlight mechanisms through which GCs may assist patients and companions to better understand and cope with risk information., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe the impact of genetic information on Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk communication to patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and their visit companions., Methods: Participants of the fourth REVEAL Study trial were randomized to receive AD risk assessments with or without genotype results. We coded 79 audio recorded risk disclosure sessions with the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Multilevel analyses explored differences in communication when disclosed risks were based on age and MCI diagnosis alone or in addition to APOE genotype status., Results: The addition of genotype results diminished the patient-centered nature of the sessions (p<0.001). When ε4 positive relative to ε4 negative results were disclosed, visit companions were more verbally active (p<0.05), disclosed more medical information (p<0.05), were more positive verbally and non-verbally (p<0.05) and were more proactive in setting the visit agenda (p<0.05)., Conclusions: Delivery of complex genetic risk information reduces the patient-centeredness of disclosure sessions. Visit companions are more actively engaged in session communication when patients are at increased genetic risk for AD., Practice Implications: AD risk discussions can be improved by supporting the positive role of visit companions and addressing the challenges inherent in the delivery of complex genetic information in a patient-centered manner., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cancer genomic services (CGS) can support genetic risk‐stratified cancer prevention and treatment. Racial/ethnic minority groups are less likely to access and utilize CGS compared with non‐Hispanic Whites. Little research has described characteristics of interventions targeted at CGS among Latinos. This scoping review aimed to (1) describe interventions promoting uptake of CGS among Latinos in the United States and Latin America, (2) describe intervention adaptations for Latino participants, and (3) summarize intervention implementation factors suggested by reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE‐AIM) framework. We conducted a search in English and Spanish of literature published between 2005 and 2022 across PubMed and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases. Sixteen of 2344 papers met the inclusion criteria of the analysis. Efforts to promote CGS among Latino communities were limited in the US and lower in Latin America. This review highlights the need for in‐depth exploration of acculturation‐informed interventions and better reporting on implementation factors to enhance their scalability across diverse settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Georgia implemented a statewide family history screening program for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. From November 2012 through December 2020, 29 090 individuals were screened, 16 679 of whom (57.3%) self-identified as a racial/ethnic minority. Of the 4% (1172/29 090) of individuals who screened as high risk, more than half underwent genetic consultation (793/1172; 67.7%) and testing (416/589; 70.6%). Compared with White women, Black and Hispanic women had higher uptake rates of genetic consultation. Public health settings serving racial minorities are well suited to address disparities in genetic service access. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(9):1249–1252. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306932) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inherited risk is a family issue. Identifying family members who carry a pathogenic genetic variant that increases risk of cancers and other chronic diseases can be lifesaving for those affected.Objective: The research questions are: (1) which family communication frameworks have been applied, (2) how do intervention strategies employed map to these theories, and (3) to what extent were families receptive to these strategies and communication increased?Methods: Manuscripts published between January 2010 and August 2020 were searched in three databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science.Results: Nine intervention trials were identified. All interventions were evaluated in clinical genetic counseling contexts using at least one individual-level strategy (e.g. increase knowledge). Only three focused on dyadic conversations such as preparing for relatives' information needs.Conclusions: This systematic review posed the question whether theoretically based approaches have been applied to foster family genetic risk communication. Greater attention needs to be paid to the utilization of dyadic level and family system level theories to guide intervention developments.Practical Implications: We conclude by calling for accelerating and broadening the development of interventions to enable family communication about inherited risk that are theory-based, incorporate family-systems thinking, and are conducted outside of specialty clinic settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite efforts to increase the availability of clinical genetic testing and counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian (HBOC)-related cancers, these services remain underutilized in clinical settings. There have been few efforts to understand the public's use of cancer genetic services, particularly for HBOC-related cancers. This analysis is based on data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a U.S.-based nationwide probability sample, to better understand the public's use of HBOC-related clinical cancer genetic services. Bivariate analyses were used to compute percentages and examine the associations of familial cancer risk for three genetic services outcomes (ever had genetic counseling for cancer risk, ever discussed genetic testing for cancer risk with a provider, and ever had genetic testing for cancer risk). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of familial cancer risk and other demographic and health variables with genetic services. Most women (87.67%) in this study were at low risk based on self-reported family history of breast and ovarian cancer, 10.65% were at medium risk, and 1.68% were at high risk. Overall, very small numbers of individuals had ever had genetic counseling (2.78%), discussed genetic testing with their physician (4.55%) or had genetic testing (1.64%). Across all genetic services outcomes, individuals who were at higher familial risk were more likely to have had genetic counseling than those at lower risk (high risk: aOR = 5.869, 95% CI = 2.911–11.835; medium risk: aOR = 4.121, 95% CI = 2.934–5.789), discussed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 5.133, 95% CI = 2.699–9.764; medium risk: aOR = 3.649, 95% CI = 2.696–4.938), and completed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 8.531, 95% CI = 3.666–19.851; medium risk aOR = 3.057, 95% CI = 1.835–5.094). Those who perceived themselves as being more likely to develop cancer than the average woman were more likely to engage in genetic counseling (aOR = 1.916, 95% CI = 1.334–2.752), discuss genetic testing (aOR = 3.314, 95% CI = 2.463–4.459) or have had genetic testing (aOR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.13–3.54). Personal cancer history was also a significant predictor of likelihood to have engaged in genetic services. Our findings highlight: (1) potential under-utilization of cancer genetic services among high risk populations in the U.S. and (2) differences in genetic services use based on individual's characteristics such as self-reported familial risk, personal history, and beliefs about risk of cancer. These results align with other studies which have noted that awareness and use of genetic services are low in the general population and likely not reaching individuals who could benefit most from screening for inherited cancers. Efforts to promote public awareness of familial cancer risk may lead to better uptake of cancer genetic services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]