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.

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.

Citizen science (CS) approaches involving non-professional researchers (citizens) as research collaborators has been used infrequently in health promotion generally and specifically, in cancer prevention. Standardized CS approaches may be especially useful for developing communication interventions to encourage families to consider cancer genetic services. We engaged survivors of ovarian cancer and their close relatives as CS collaborators to collect and help interpret data to inform content for a website, printed invitation materials, and short-message reminders. We applied an implementation quality framework, and posed four research questions regarding the feasibility of CS: recruitment, data collection, data quality and evaluation of the experience. CS members were recruited through three networks: clinical sites, local and national cancer support organizations, and online ovarian cancer patient support groups. The professional research team operationalized theory-aligned CS tasks, five data collection options, question banks/scripts for creating surveys, structured interviews, online training and ongoing support from research coaches. 14 CS members agreed to the 12-week and 20-hour commitment for an honorarium. CS members opted to do both qualitative and quantitative assessments. CS members collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews. The largest number of surveys were collected for Task 1 (n = 102) to assess survivors’ reactions to different possible options for motivating survivors to visit a study website; 77% of this data were complete (i.e., no missing values). Data collected for tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5 (e.g., assessment of survivors’ and relatives’ respective communication preferences) ranged from 10 to 58 surveys (80% to 84% completeness). All data were collected within the specified time frame. CSs reported 17 hours of work on average and regarded the experience positively. Our experience suggests that CS engagement is feasible, can yield comprehensive quantitative and qualitative data, and is achievable in a relatively a short timeline.

Most monogenic diabetes is misdiagnosed as either type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D/T2D). Few studies have examined the diagnostic challenges from the patients’ perspective. This qualitative study aimed to investigate patients’ journeys to obtaining a diagnosis of maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) by elucidating the range of factors that can act as barriers and facilitators throughout this process. We recruited participants from the Personalized Diabetes Medicine Program (PDMP) at University of Maryland and used respondent-driven sampling to recruit additional patients. We conducted qualitative phone interviews between October 2016 and June 2017 with nine patients with diagnoses of monogenic diabetes (one HNF4A-MODY, seven GCK-MODY, and one HNF1A-MODY) and one parent of a patient with INS-MODY. Interview data were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed both inductively and deductively using thematic content analysis. All patients were female, with a mean age of 35 (range: 7–67 years). The amount of time these patients were misdiagnosed ranged from a few months to 41 years. We identified barriers and facilitators in three broad themes: (a) patient-related (nature of MODY symptoms, perceived test utility, individual personality); (b) provider-related (provider awareness and knowledge, provider communication); and (c) healthcare system-related (cost of testing, access to knowledgeable providers, patient education, and support resources). The diverse range of barriers and facilitators reiterates the complexity of the MODY diagnostic process. Limited awareness and knowledge of MODY from healthcare professionals and patients themselves account for most diagnostic delays described in this study. Efforts to promote awareness of MODY and expand access to screening and testing may result in quicker diagnosis and ensure the downstream benefits of proper treatment.

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.