Jane Tiller, Keri Finlay, Evanthia O Madelli, Melissa Monnik, Matilda R Jackson, Nicola Poplawski, Tiffany Boughtwood, Kristen J Nowak, Margaret Otlowski
{"title":"Patients' perspectives regarding health professionals contacting their relatives about genetic risk directly (with patient consent).","authors":"Jane Tiller, Keri Finlay, Evanthia O Madelli, Melissa Monnik, Matilda R Jackson, Nicola Poplawski, Tiffany Boughtwood, Kristen J Nowak, Margaret Otlowski","doi":"10.1038/s41431-024-01764-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Genetic testing of blood relatives of individuals at high risk of dominant conditions has significant preventive health benefits. However, cascade testing uptake is <50%. Research shows increased testing uptake when health professionals (HPs) contact at-risk relatives directly, with patient consent. Despite international support, this is not standard practice in Australia. We aimed to gather perspectives of genetic testing patients about direct-contact methods. Using an online survey, we surveyed Australian adults with genetic results of relevance for relatives, including patients who (i) self-categorised as being directly contacted by a clinical service, (ii) self-categorised as being referred by a HP, and (iii) received genetic results through a research study. Overall, 442 patients responded (clinical n = 363; research n = 79). Clinical patients self-categorised as 49.0% directly-contacted and 51.0% referred. Overall, the majority of patients had no privacy concerns about direct-contact methods (direct-contact 97%; referred 77%; research 76%). Less than 5% of the combined cohort (n = 19/442) reported significant concerns. The most prevalent concerns were the need for consent to provide HPs with relatives' contact details, and a patient preference to notify relatives before HP contact. Other key findings include preferences about contact methods, including that most patients who received a letter from a genetics service preferred a letter with specific information about the familial genetic condition (n = 141/149; 94.6%) than one with general information about genetic risk. Our findings indicate Australian patients support HPs using direct-contact methods to assist with risk communication to relatives. Findings also identify concerns to be addressed in the design of direct-contact programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12016,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Human Genetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Human Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01764-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Genetic testing of blood relatives of individuals at high risk of dominant conditions has significant preventive health benefits. However, cascade testing uptake is <50%. Research shows increased testing uptake when health professionals (HPs) contact at-risk relatives directly, with patient consent. Despite international support, this is not standard practice in Australia. We aimed to gather perspectives of genetic testing patients about direct-contact methods. Using an online survey, we surveyed Australian adults with genetic results of relevance for relatives, including patients who (i) self-categorised as being directly contacted by a clinical service, (ii) self-categorised as being referred by a HP, and (iii) received genetic results through a research study. Overall, 442 patients responded (clinical n = 363; research n = 79). Clinical patients self-categorised as 49.0% directly-contacted and 51.0% referred. Overall, the majority of patients had no privacy concerns about direct-contact methods (direct-contact 97%; referred 77%; research 76%). Less than 5% of the combined cohort (n = 19/442) reported significant concerns. The most prevalent concerns were the need for consent to provide HPs with relatives' contact details, and a patient preference to notify relatives before HP contact. Other key findings include preferences about contact methods, including that most patients who received a letter from a genetics service preferred a letter with specific information about the familial genetic condition (n = 141/149; 94.6%) than one with general information about genetic risk. Our findings indicate Australian patients support HPs using direct-contact methods to assist with risk communication to relatives. Findings also identify concerns to be addressed in the design of direct-contact programs.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Human Genetics is the official journal of the European Society of Human Genetics, publishing high-quality, original research papers, short reports and reviews in the rapidly expanding field of human genetics and genomics. It covers molecular, clinical and cytogenetics, interfacing between advanced biomedical research and the clinician, and bridging the great diversity of facilities, resources and viewpoints in the genetics community.
Key areas include:
-Monogenic and multifactorial disorders
-Development and malformation
-Hereditary cancer
-Medical Genomics
-Gene mapping and functional studies
-Genotype-phenotype correlations
-Genetic variation and genome diversity
-Statistical and computational genetics
-Bioinformatics
-Advances in diagnostics
-Therapy and prevention
-Animal models
-Genetic services
-Community genetics