OBJECTIVE To implement, disseminate, and evaluate a sustainable method for identifying, diagnosing, and promoting individualized therapy for monogenic diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients were recruited into the implementation study through a screening questionnaire completed in the waiting room or through the patient portal, physician recognition, or self-referral. Patients suspected of having monogenic diabetes based on the processing of their questionnaire and other data through an algorithm underwent next-generation sequencing for 40 genes implicated in monogenic diabetes and related conditions. RESULTS Three hundred thirteen probands with suspected monogenic diabetes (but most diagnosed with type 2 diabetes) were enrolled from October 2014 to January 2019. Sequencing identified 38 individuals with monogenic diabetes, with most variants found in GCK or HNF1A. Positivity rates for ascertainment methods were 3.1% for clinic screening, 5.3% for electronic health record portal screening, 16.5% for physician recognition, and 32.4% for self-referral. The algorithmic criterion of non–type 1 diabetes before age 30 years had an overall positivity rate of 15.0%. CONCLUSIONS We successfully modeled the efficient incorporation of monogenic diabetes diagnosis into the diabetes care setting, using multiple strategies to screen and identify a subpopulation with a 12.1% prevalence of monogenic diabetes by molecular testing. Self-referral was particularly efficient (32% prevalence), suggesting that educating the lay public in addition to clinicians may be the most effective way to increase the diagnosis rate in monogenic diabetes. Scaling up this model will assure access to diagnosis and customized treatment among those with monogenic diabetes and, more broadly, access to personalized medicine across disease areas.

This study aimed to assess women’s willingness to alter mammogram frequency based on their low risk for HBOC, and to examine if cognitive and emotional factors are associated with women’s inclination to decrease mammogram frequency. We conducted an online survey with women (N = 124) who were unlikely to have a BRCA mutation and at average population risk for breast cancer based on family history. Most women were either white (50%) or African American (38%) and were 50 years or older (74%). One-third of women (32%) were willing to decrease mammogram frequency (as consistent with the USPSTF guideline), 42% reported being unwilling and 26% were unsure. Multivariate logistic regression showed that feeling worried about breast cancer (Adjust OR = 0.33, p = 0.01), greater genetic risk knowledge (Adjust OR = 0.74, p = 0.047), and more frequent past mammogram screening (Adjust OR = 0.13, p = 0.001) were associated with being less willing to decrease screening frequency. Findings suggest that emerging genomics-informed medical guidelines may not be accepted by many patients when the recommendations go against what is considered standard practice. Further study of the interplay between emotion- and cognition-based processing of the HBOC screen result will be important for strategizing communication interventions aimed at realizing the potential of precision public health.

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.

The objective of this study was to identify how features of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) genetic risk disclosure communication relate to patient and visit companion satisfaction. We conducted secondary analyses of 79 session recordings from the fourth REVEAL Study, a randomized-controlled trial of AD genetic risk disclosure among patients with mild cognitive impairment. Patient and companion satisfaction were ascertained from postdisclosure surveys. The Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) was used to code triadic communication between the counselor, patient, and companion. High satisfaction was evident for 24% of patients (N = 19) and 48% of companions (N = 38). Multivariate logistic regressions showed that high patient satisfaction was associated with patients’ expression of emotions (OR = 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0–1.1) and companions’ questions about psychosocial and lifestyle topics (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1–2.8). High companion satisfaction was positively related to the RIAS overall patient-centeredness score for the session (OR = 4.0, 95% CI: 1.0–15.6) (all p-values <0.05). Communication predictors of patient and companion satisfaction reflect specific or summary indicators of patient-centeredness. Findings also suggest that visit companions positively influence patient satisfaction. The study results support the growing literature and policy attention directed toward delivering family-centered care.

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.

In this commentary, we submit that the current emphasis of precision cancer screening and treatment (PCST) has been to provide and interpret the implications of “positive” screening results for those deemed to be at greatest risk for cancer or most likely to benefit from targeted treatments. This is an important, but proportionately small target group, regardless of the cancer context. Overlooked by this focus is the larger majority of those screened who receive “negative” results. We contend that for optimal dissemination of PCST, the complement of positive and negative results be viewed as an inseparable yin–yang duality with the needs of those who receive negative screening results viewed as important as those deemed to be at highest risk or derive targeted treatment benefit. We describe three areas where communication of negative PCST results warrant particular attention and research consideration: population-based family history screening, germline testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, and tumor testing for targeted cancer treatment decision-making. Without thoughtful consideration of the potential for negative results to have psychological and behavioral influences, there is a potential to create a “neglected majority”. This majority may be inclined to misinterpret results, disseminate inaccurate information to family, dismiss the credibility of results, or become disillusioned with existing medical treatments.

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.

Purpose: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) requires that states develop comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans and recommends that disparities related to rural residence are addressed in these plans. The objective of this study was to explore rural partner engagement and describe effective strategies for incorporating a rural focus in CCC plans. Methods: States were selected for inclusion using stratified sampling based on state rurality and region. State cancer control leaders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers to engaging rural partners and strategies for prioritizing rural populations. Content analysis was conducted to identify themes across states. Results: Interviews (n = 30) revealed themes in three domains related to rural inclusion in CCC plans. The first domain (barriers) included (1) designing CCC plans to be broad, (2) defining “rural populations,” and (3) geographic distance. The second domain (successful strategies) included (1) collaborating with rural healthcare systems, (2) recruiting rural constituents, (3) leveraging rural community–academic partnerships, and (4) working jointly with Native nations. The third domain (strategies for future plan development) included (1) building relationships with rural communities, (2) engaging rural constituents in planning, (3) developing a better understanding of rural needs, and (4) considering resources for addressing rural disparities. Conclusion: Significant relationship building with rural communities, resource provision, and successful strategies used by others may improve inclusion of rural needs in state comprehensive cancer control plans and ultimately help plan developers directly address rural cancer health disparities.

The burden of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) continues to disproportionately impact under-resourced communities in the U.S., particularly Mexican-origin populations. Genetic polymorphisms such as the rs738409 C/G variant in patatin-like phospholipase domain-containing 3 (PNPLA3) have been associated with higher prevalence of and progression along the NAFLD spectrum. This qualitative study conducted in the U.S. Southwest aimed to assess Mexican-origin men's experience receiving genetic testing for PNPLA3 risk carrier status.

Background: Democratic deliberation (DD), a strategy to foster co-learning among researchers and communities, could be applied to gain informed public input on health policies relating to genomic translation. Purpose: We evaluated the quality of DD for gaining informed community perspectives regarding targeting communities of African Ancestry (AAn) for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) screening in Georgia. Methods: We audiotaped a 2.5 day conference conducted via zoom in March 2021 to examine indicators of deliberation quality based on three principles: (1) inclusivity (diverse viewpoints based on participants' demographics, cancer history, and civic engagement), (2) consideration of factual information (balanced and unbiased expert testimonies, participant perceived helpfulness), and (3) deliberation (speaking opportunities, adoption of a societal perspective on the issue, reasoned justification of ideas, and participant satisfaction). Results: We recruited 24 participants who reflected the diversity of views and life experiences of citizens of AAn living in Georgia. The expert testimony development process we undertook for creating balanced factual information was endorsed by experts' feedback. Deliberation process evaluation showed that while participation varied (average number of statements = 24, range: 3–62), all participants contributed. Participants were able to apply expert information and take a societal perspective to deliberate on the pros and cons of targeting individuals of AAn for HBOC screening in Georgia. Conclusions: The rigorous process of public engagement using deliberative democracy approach can successfully engage a citizenry with diverse and well-informed views, do so in a relatively short time frame and yield perspectives based on high quality discussion.