Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk

Alexandra Capasso; Bita Nehoray; Nicholas Gorman; Emily A Quinn; Daiana Bucio; Kathleen R Blazer

doi:10.1002/jgc4.1887

Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk

J Genet Couns. 2024 Mar 13. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1887. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Alexandra Capasso^{1

2}, Bita Nehoray², Nicholas Gorman¹, Emily A Quinn¹, Daiana Bucio³, Kathleen R Blazer²

Affiliations

¹ School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Keck Graduate Institute, Claremont, California, USA.
² Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, USA.
³ Clinical Consultation Services, Invitae Corporation, San Francisco, California, USA.

PMID: 38480478
DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1887

Abstract

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Keywords: education; genetic counseling; genetics services; risk assessment; service delivery models.

Abstract

Grants and funding