Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing
Abstract Background Consumer genomic testing (CGT), including direct‐to‐consumer and consumer‐initiated testing, is increasingly widespread yet has limited regulatory oversight. To assess the current state, we surveyed genetics healthcare providers' experiences with CGT. Methods A retrospective...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024-08-01
|
| Series: | Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.2508 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850174672867426304 |
|---|---|
| author | Magan Trottier Dina Green Hannah Ovadia Amanda Catchings Julia Gruberg Victoria Groner Catherine Fanjoy Sita Dandiker Kathleen Blazer Jada G. Hamilton Kenneth Offit |
| author_facet | Magan Trottier Dina Green Hannah Ovadia Amanda Catchings Julia Gruberg Victoria Groner Catherine Fanjoy Sita Dandiker Kathleen Blazer Jada G. Hamilton Kenneth Offit |
| author_sort | Magan Trottier |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Consumer genomic testing (CGT), including direct‐to‐consumer and consumer‐initiated testing, is increasingly widespread yet has limited regulatory oversight. To assess the current state, we surveyed genetics healthcare providers' experiences with CGT. Methods A retrospective survey about experiences counseling on CGT results was completed by 139 respondents recruited from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, Clinical Cancer Genomics Community of Practice, and genetics professional societies. Results Among respondents, 41% disagreed with the statement that potential benefits of CGT outweigh harms, 21% agreed, and 38% were undecided. A total of 94% encountered ≥1 challenge counseling CGT patients, including adverse psychosocial events (76%), incorrect variant interpretation (68%), and unconfirmed results (69%); unconfirmed results were more common among oncology providers (p = 0.03). Providers reporting higher total challenge scores (p = 0.004) or more psychosocial or interpretation challenges (p ≤ 0.01) were more likely to indicate CGT harms outweigh benefits. Those with higher CGT clinical volume were more likely to indicate benefits outweigh harms (p = 0.003). Additional CGT challenges included patient understanding and communication of results, false negatives, incorrect testing/care, and financial costs; seven respondents (6%) documented positive outcomes. Conclusion Providers counseling CGT patients encounter psychosocial and medical challenges. Collaborations between regulators, CGT laboratories, providers, and consumers may help mitigate risks. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-c11147e7f55d4992b7ae423cd88b052d |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2324-9269 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-08-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine |
| spelling | doaj-art-c11147e7f55d4992b7ae423cd88b052d2025-08-20T02:19:37ZengWileyMolecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine2324-92692024-08-01128n/an/a10.1002/mgg3.2508Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testingMagan Trottier0Dina Green1Hannah Ovadia2Amanda Catchings3Julia Gruberg4Victoria Groner5Catherine Fanjoy6Sita Dandiker7Kathleen Blazer8Jada G. Hamilton9Kenneth Offit10Department of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USADepartment of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USADepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USADepartment of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USADepartment of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USADepartment of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USADepartment of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USADepartment of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USADivision of Clinical Cancer Genomics City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center Duarte Los Angeles USADepartment of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USADepartment of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York City New York USAAbstract Background Consumer genomic testing (CGT), including direct‐to‐consumer and consumer‐initiated testing, is increasingly widespread yet has limited regulatory oversight. To assess the current state, we surveyed genetics healthcare providers' experiences with CGT. Methods A retrospective survey about experiences counseling on CGT results was completed by 139 respondents recruited from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, Clinical Cancer Genomics Community of Practice, and genetics professional societies. Results Among respondents, 41% disagreed with the statement that potential benefits of CGT outweigh harms, 21% agreed, and 38% were undecided. A total of 94% encountered ≥1 challenge counseling CGT patients, including adverse psychosocial events (76%), incorrect variant interpretation (68%), and unconfirmed results (69%); unconfirmed results were more common among oncology providers (p = 0.03). Providers reporting higher total challenge scores (p = 0.004) or more psychosocial or interpretation challenges (p ≤ 0.01) were more likely to indicate CGT harms outweigh benefits. Those with higher CGT clinical volume were more likely to indicate benefits outweigh harms (p = 0.003). Additional CGT challenges included patient understanding and communication of results, false negatives, incorrect testing/care, and financial costs; seven respondents (6%) documented positive outcomes. Conclusion Providers counseling CGT patients encounter psychosocial and medical challenges. Collaborations between regulators, CGT laboratories, providers, and consumers may help mitigate risks.https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.2508consumer‐initiated genetic testingdirect‐to‐consumer genetic testinggenetic counselinggenetics healthcare providers |
| spellingShingle | Magan Trottier Dina Green Hannah Ovadia Amanda Catchings Julia Gruberg Victoria Groner Catherine Fanjoy Sita Dandiker Kathleen Blazer Jada G. Hamilton Kenneth Offit Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine consumer‐initiated genetic testing direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing genetic counseling genetics healthcare providers |
| title | Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing |
| title_full | Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing |
| title_fullStr | Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing |
| title_full_unstemmed | Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing |
| title_short | Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing |
| title_sort | genetics healthcare providers experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing |
| topic | consumer‐initiated genetic testing direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing genetic counseling genetics healthcare providers |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.2508 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT magantrottier geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT dinagreen geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT hannahovadia geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT amandacatchings geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT juliagruberg geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT victoriagroner geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT catherinefanjoy geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT sitadandiker geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT kathleenblazer geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT jadaghamilton geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting AT kennethoffit geneticshealthcareprovidersexperiencescounselingpatientswithresultsfromconsumergenomictesting |